Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> 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.

The thread sure seemed to take a don't use digital for bw 
direction. Perhaps I was reading to much into it. But I believe the 
initial question was whether to try digital for BW. My goal is just to 
balance out your opinion with another.

I still stand by my opinion that its irelevant what you use to shoot 
with. When you shoot film, you make a print... a BW print... as in a 
print of nothing but shades of gray. When you work digital you 
still do a print... a BW print... as in a print with nothing but shades 
of gray. Unless your excitment is in looking at a negative, it is just 
a means to an end, as is digital. For me the capture is irrelevant 
when the end result of a BW print is the goal, the capture is just a 
capture, it doesn't matter to me that I'm not doing a capture on 
BW film. I'm not being argumentative, just pointing out that for 
some, digital capture to get the end results of a BW print does 
work well. Not for you perhaps, but it does for me.

Dave