Digital BW, The Print

Ummm, most film scanners take 3 simulanious scans, one for each 
channel, to make the RGB file so you do not have the same issues as 
with interpolated sensor data.  You scan b&w and you get exactly the 
same dimensions as you do with RGB, plus, with the channel mixing you 
should be averaging out scanner noise and improving your image.  
Also, since current scanners aren't capturing actual grain clumps the 
benifits of silver based film is lost in the scanning process.  As to 
needing to shoot b&w film for best results, I strongly disagree.  My 
gallery hung a group show with mine being the only "digital b&w" 
printed on an inkjet and it stood up quite well to all the 
traditional emulsion work surrounding it... in fact, not one of the 
other photographers could fault my work, even though they shared your 
hostile feelings toward digital or anything but "real b&w."

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Tom Baker writes:
> 
> > Digital gives me far more control over every part of the curve 
than
> > was/is possible with film and chemistry.  Can someone tell me/us 
what
> > the big attraction/use is for this 'feature'?
> 
> As long as you are doing any type of conversion from RGB to B&W, 
whether
> it be with a digital image or with a film scan, you've already lost 
most
> of the information in the image, so your possibilities for B&W are 
very
> limited.
> 
> While you may not wish to emulate a specific B&W film, you still 
need to
> shoot B&W if you want the best B&W results.  There is no way around
> this.