Digital BW, The Print

Dave writes:

> True, but you can get great results by shooting
> in color and then using PS to work with the image
> on conversion.

You can get good results, but you can never reproduce the results obtainable
with actual B&W photography.

> Nor can you make TriX look like infrared, or
> TechPan look like TriX or any other comparison
> of the sort.

Correct.  That's why you must use an original image capture method that
matches the results you want, e.g., shoot Tri-X if you want Tri-X results.

> Digital is just diferent, just as are all tools
> we use. Why compare it to any film or scan?

I'm not.  I'm comparing converted RGB to true B&W capture.  You cannot
convert RGB in a way that duplicates B&W capture.

This is true irrespective of any film or digital considerations.

> I don't need to try to create the "look" of film ...

It's not the look of film that I'm discussing; it's the look of black and
white.

> The unbeleivable amount of data on a good digital
> capture at hi bit is awsome.

Not after you've seen a good scan of film.

> Break out of the old thinking when using digital
> and enjoy what it does.

There's nothing old about shooting in black and white, nor does it have
anything to do with questions of digital vs. film.

> 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.

I don't understand how you managed to misinterpret my post as a digital vs.
film debate.  It has nothing to do with that.  It's a statement of why you
cannot get true B&W images from a conversion of color images.  If someone
had asked about converting color slides to grayscale, I would have pointed
out exactly the same problem.  The only influence of digital at all--and it
is a relatively oblique influence--is that there are no B&W digital cameras,
whereas there are still plenty of B&W films.  So if you want true B&W
capture, you have to shoot film.