Digital BW, The Print

Anthony,

> I worry about it, too.  There is a very widespread but mistaken
> belief that
> the images produced by any B&W film can be duplicated by some magic
> manipulation of a color image in Photoshop.  That just isn't possible.

Well, it is possible to come up with very good images converting color to
B&W, and what "qualities" and/or "characteristics" someone else may deem
"duplicate", may not be the ones YOU deem, but that doesn't make their
belief incorrect.

Another issue is, why is duplicate important at all?  Why not take it for
what it is, and if you like it, so be it, and if you don't, so be it.  No
doubt it's different, but does it give you the results you want is what
should be what is important, not trying to "duplicate" something.

> > The few images I worked up were sharp, well
> > rendered, and made prints that were basically
> > "good" in many ways, yet failed to fully satisfy
> > by not "pressing my button" in the way my scans
> > of Tri-X negs have.
>
> The converted B&W images will never exactly match Tri-X or any other B&W
> film.

Of course not, but it certainly may give someone an image that they are very
happy with, and has all the qualities that they want in an image.  If you
want Tri-X, shoot Tri-X, but not everyone wants the look of Tri-X.  Also,
Tri-X is simply not Tri-X.  It is very dependant on the development, and
therefore one persons Tri-X will not be the same as another's Tri-X.

Austin