Digital BW, The Print

Hello Tim,

>The RGB/toned print was the best, with a full range of subtle 
>detail in the "white" birch bark (and the sky)...Next best was 
>the greyscale - still lots of detail, but slightly noticeable 
>dots...Last was black only - significant lost of detail in the 
>bark and the sky...
>While you could obviously see the differences with a loupe, the 
>difference was also clearly noticeable with the RGB/toned and BO 
>prints side by side at a normal viewing distance.

This seems like an accurate and fair description of the differences in
the three techniques, and I would not disagree.  I would only add that
from my experience, the degree to which a BO print is noticeable at
normal viewing distance varies from one image to another.  I have just
framed an 11x14 BO print from a 6x6 Tri-X neg (has a large smooth
middle-gray background) and have it sitting next to the framed
original silver print, and have examined them up close in good light.
 Other than a warmer tone, the two are nearly indistiguishable.  
Someone would have to be primed in advance and know what to look for
to percieve any difference.

In spite of any shortcomings, BO printing has enough positive
attributes that many photographers use it.  Richard was correct about
unbiased viewers often choosing BO prints over others.  There have
been several reports in the forum of such instances.  It's just a
matter of different strokes....  As I keep experimenting and learning
I find out more things about it, as I'll relate below.
 


>Now, maybe the difference was that these were prints from 8x10 
>scans - with a full range of tonal changes to be obtained - if you 
>were working from a scan from 35mm or a digital files, possibly that 
>detail wouldn't be there to lose in the first place?

Quite possible, but I'm not certain.  Until recently all of my prints
were from scanned negs, including 35mm, 645, 6x7 and 4x5.  Generally
all the advantages of large negs we saw in the darkroom carry over to
digi prints, but the degree of BO graininess doesn't always follow
that - sometimes it defies any logical explanation.  I'm beginning to
think it's more related to the size of the grain in the film, as might
vary with different developers, etc.  Two things happened recently
that point to this.

I printed a scan of a 4x5 neg that had been reticulated (fixer too
cold), and even on a small print (4x5, essentially a contact print)
where the grain/retic was too small to see, the sky looked coarser
than on many of my other prints, even larger ones from smaller negs. 
I'm thinking that maybe the driver perceives the film grain and
attempts to print it, even though it's too small to see, and the
result is the coarseness.  Reinforcing this, at about the same time I
also printed an 8mp digicam image that has a large smooth background
(piece of canvas, about Zone VIII) that is perfectly smooth and
requires a loupe to tell it is BO.  The image has much less
resolution than the 4x5 scan, but has no grain.

None of this changes what you're seeing in your print of course, but
only points out that it's not a simple black and white issue <pun
intended>.

Most of my shooting from now on with be with the digicam, so I intend
to continue experimenting and will report if I find anything
significant.  

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm