Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital, film, scanning comparisons


> Martin writes:
>
> > Since the conversion to B&W drops 2/3 of the
> > data the implication is that to match 35mm B&W
> > you would need 30 megapixal direct capture.
>
> Agreed.  But you'll never get really good black and white from
any RGB
> imaging device.  The only way to get top quality black and
white is with a
> dedicated black and white imaging device.  A CCD could
certainly do this,
> but only if it were truly dedicated to the task, with no color
filters, and
> I don't see anyone producing that.
>
> Similarly, you can't scan color film and convert it to B&W with
results that
> come anywhere near to true B&W film.

If we are on that route I suggest to get a scanner for B&W film
that is a true B&W scanner as well.
The Agfa Horizon Plus that I have is a 3 pass (3 filter) scanner
for RGB but it is a single pass (ND filter in front of the
sensor) for B&W scanning. 1200 ppi.  The results I get from my
Nikon 8000 and the Epson 3200 are much better though. On all 3 I
use wetmounting for the best results. If it was true that a
mosaic CCD or three line sensor can only contribute 1/3 of its
quality for a B&W image this difference wouldn't be so
significant. The Horizon is an older scanner but its construction
and optics belong to the best around. It just isn't so simple
that a mosaic CCD or CMOS can only contribute 1/3 of its data to
B&W.

I'm still using (as an amateur) colour negative and Polaroid B&W
film for everything and the scans are perfect. The digital takes
for art reproduction that I order from photographers are from
Sinar backs mainly. Excellent material for art prints that can't
be done that well with film>digital if it was only because one
avoids an extra cmyk>rgb translation in the process. Most art up
to A3 is scanned directly if possible.
Some is done on a wide format scanner. The rest of the work is
scanning and printing done for photographers. The colour quality
of the digital back images is better than the directly scanned
images. One wonders why but a thread on the colorsync list
revealed that scanners are still made to reproduce photo dyes
best (even the non film flatbeds) so real life pigments etc get
the wrong treatment. Digital backs are made for real life
colours.

The best process for art reproduction/archiving these days is
done with multi spectral takes where up to 7 narrow band filtered
CCD images are used for the final image. I'm sure one could brew
a nice B&W image of that colour image if needed, most likely a
much better one than if only one is done without a filter. Like
with all digital photography extra sampling adds.

Ernst