Digital BW, The Print

Craig: I show a lot of chromogenic film simply because it works for
me. Great latitude, fast, minimal grain problems, scans well and all
that. I'm not into "labels" or traditionalist thinking. Or, even
following popular opinion but instead use what works for me.

I see the only downside as not being able to shoot, come home develop,
scan & print that night. (hence, I'm shooting some Delta 400 both 35mm
and 120) Of course, not having to develop is a positive sometimes. 

My style of shooting is predominantly NOT tripod based and relies more
on the emotion from the people in the image than absolute beauty of
the print as is common with the landscape photographer. So faster
films work better for me. 

But everyone should use what works for them. That's why they make so
many different types of film as well as format sizes.  

Bob Michaels 

--- 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!
> 
> regards
> Craig