Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Jeff writes:
> 
> > Can you tell me why this is the case?
> 
> Two reasons:
> 
> 1) All current digital cameras are color cameras.  The 
continuous spectrum
> of light in the original scene is reduced to three numbers, for 
red, green,
> and blue.  It is not possible to convert these three numbers to a 
grayscale
> rendering of all the possible B&W images that could have 
been taken of the
> original scene, because the recording in RGB deletes most of 
the necessary
> information for this.  You cannot duplicate the results of a 
narrow-band
> yellow filter on B&W images with any manipulation of the RGB 
color image
> from a digicam, nor can you duplicate the results of a specific 
spectral
> sensitivity in B&W film by any conversion of RGB to grayscale.

True, but you can get great results by shooting in color and then 
using PS to work with the image on conversion. Not just a 
straight forward simple conversion but one involving more 
thought in using the power of PS and colors availble to work with. 


> 
> 2) Since color digicams receive only one color per pixel, and 
then
> interpolate, B&W conversions of these images are lower in 
resolution and
> higher in noise than would be true original B&W image 
captures.
> 
> Both of these problems would be solved by a true B&W digital 
camera (one
> without a matrix color filter in front of the sensor, and one that 
recorded
> the image directly in grayscale).  However, nobody currently 
builds such a
> camera, and image sensors are not interchangeable.
> 
> > If I wanted to make an 8x 10 B&W print using a hextone
> > ink system From a 6 MP digital SLR raw camera
> > file (that has me carefully processed and converted
> > to grayscale) as opposed to shooting a B&W medium
> > format neg and scanning it.... what would be lacking?
> 
> That depends on to what you compare it.
> 
> The results of certain types of filters in B&W photography 
cannot be
> duplicated by any manipulation of a RGB color image; 
however, you can
> duplicate them by using the same filter over the camera in the 
original
> shot.  I've already mentioned the example of a narrow-band 
yellow filter,
> which is a very simple illustration, but there exists an infinite 
number of
> combinations that cannot be rendered by conversion of RGB.
> 
> A more difficult problem is rendering the spectral sensitivity of 
a specific
> or theoretical B&W film, which simply isn't possible at all 
without shooting
> with that kind of film (unless you have a very special, 
custom-made
> correction filter over the lens when you shoot in RGB).
> 
> Note that this problem exists for conversion of any color image 
to
> grayscale, whether the color image comes from a digital 
camera or film.
> It's just that you can shoot real B&W with film, whereas no 
digital camera
> allows you to shoot B&W directly.
> 
> Put more simply, you can never precisely duplicate a Tri-X look 
without
> shooting Tri-X, nor can you duplicate the look of Tech Pan with 
a
> narrow-band filter, nor can you duplicate just about anything 
else
> perfectly, or even approximately.

Nor can you make TriX look like infrared, or TechPan look like 
TriX or any other comparison of the sort. Digital is just diferent, 
just as are all tools we use. Why compare it to any film or scan? 
It is what it is. I get great results from my S2 and PhaseOne H20. 
Is it like any BW film? No, but the images are great as they are. I 
don't need to try to create the "look" of film... just use it for what it 
can do and forget trying to force into a film type. The unbeleivable 
amount of data on a good digital capture at hi bit  is awsome. 
Break out of the old thinking when using digital and enjoy what it 
does. If you want to shoot film go for it... but I don't understand 
why the thinking is that it needs to be exactly where film is at to 
be any good. Its just different.

Dave