Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "craig" 
<craygc@y...> wrote:
>As my thoughts will undoubtably be construed as a personal 
>attack by some, I'll apologise upfront - "if I'm wrong, then please 
>enlighten me"
> 
>I am curious as to why people who engage in a hybrid-digital 
>B&W workflow (shoot film and scan) would really want to use a 
>chromogenic film. As for being true B&W, these films are 
>conceptually as B&W as printing greyscale with a cmyk inkset 
>and without offering any of the traditional characteristics of 
>silver based film over that of colour print film - eg expanded 
>exposure ranges. Almost all the chromogenic are softer 
>(resolving ability) than colour print alternatives; and as 
>Photoshop (or similar software) is an inevitable component of 
>the the digital B&W end-to-end workflow, shooting in colour 
>print and converting to B&W in the computer surely 
>offers greater flexibility and control over contrast and tonal 
>adjustments ...and surely colour print conversions cant be 
>considered any less B&W than the using a chromogenic!

For me, one of the other benefits of shooting with XP2 Super is, if 
you will, its "backward compatibility"; unlike color negative film, I 
can take XP2 and go straight into the wet darkroom, if I wish, to 
make prints, without some of the backflip compromises required 
with color negs. No limitations on choice of paper or technique.

XP2's push/pull versatility is, of course, wonderful (following 
classic Tri-X tradition, I regularly expose the film at EI 320). 
Sharpness, to my eye, is very good, although likely not quite a 
match for some of the sharper conventional b/w film types. About 
the only conventional b/w films I might occasionally use in place 
of XP2 are at the extremes: Pan F, and Delta 3200 (or Fuji 1600). 
But it's not all that often.

- Barrett