Digital BW, The Print

Alan writes:

> True, the D60 has a higher pixel count than my D30,
> but I doubt that it could compete against a 35mm
> analog print let alone a MF scan such as the example
> Anthony displayed.

No electronic camera that uses color filters (matrix or even tri-CCD) is
going to match conventional B&W film for B&W images.  Indeed, no color film
can match B&W film for B&W images, either.  It's not a question of digital
vs. film in this case, it's just a consequence of discarding image
information with a conversion to simply RGB values.  Once that conversion is
made, most of the information necessary to produce very good B&W is gone,
and only inferior simulations are possible by converting RGB back to
grayscale.

Electronic cameras with a single CCD are additionally handicapped by the
fact that their color resolution is very poor.  This degrades any B&W image
prepared therefrom substantially.

> It seems, based on a few responses, that I should
> revisit my film scan and play around some more.

Good film scans look extremely nice, nice enough to surpass digital easily
(IMO).  And good desktop scanners are sufficient to produce these good
scans.  But it does take some trial and error to start producing very nice
scans.  Anyone who scans film for the first time and then compares their raw
scans to digital will be misled into believing that digital is superior.
Nowadays, though, after doing many thousands of scans, each time I look at
one of my scans, I see proof that film is still doing better.

When someone tells me that he did a scan of Velvia or T-Max or something and
it looked worse than digital, all that tells me is that he doesn't know
anything about scanning.  It's true that scanning is not for the impatient.

> Now...I wish to thank Anthony for his incredible
> image (street.jpg). My Epson Expression 1680 could
> never produce that kind of quality...guess I
> didn't know what a really good film scanner could do.

It might be the scanner; it might not.  A lot depends on how you tweak your
scans.  It does help, however, to have a scanner that can handle the largest
density range you can afford, for black and white work, since B&W negatives
have such a broad density range.

Also, you'll want a scanner that can handle far more than 8-bit scans,
otherwise you'll never recover the subtle tonality of B&W film.

Drum scans are ideal, I suppose, although I seem to get good results with my
desktop scanner (I suppose a drum scanner would look still nicer in
comparison, though).

> Me thinks that maybe I should consider one of
> these scanners and dust off my MF gear.

I've been fully satisfied by the LS-8000ED.  It occupies quite a bit of
space on my desk, but it sure does a nice job, and it lets me scan MF, which
was very important.

It would be nice if there were a LS-12000ED or something to scan LF film,
but I don't know if that will ever happen.  If I were to venture into LF,
I'm not exactly sure what I'd do with the results if I didn't have a scanner
to scan them with.

Above all, it seems to me that with a good scanner and a good printer
dedicated to B&W, it should be possible (?) to produce exhibition-quality
prints right in one's own home.  This last point is the question I'm trying
to get answered these days.  I have a bit of space on a table for one more
printer; when and if I have the money, I'd like to dedicate a printer to B&W
for this purpose.