Digital BW, The Print

Hi Chris,

> I used to shoot PX and TX always loved them, especially in HC 110 or
> D76 1:1.

I develop exclusively in D-76 1:1.

> But now that I am difital I have SO much more control over
> the look and feel.

Hum...how so?  I scan my film, and can do anything to it that you can to any
digital image...but don't need to, as they come out exactly as I want them
by simply developing, scanning and printing with quadtone inks...except the
occasional dust spot which PS so kindly takes care of...I don't even need to
sharpen.

> And I won't let anyone tell me I can't fool even
> an expert if I want to. But who wants to?

I would take issue with that, there certainly are deficiencies in using a
Bayer pattern sensor (and digital in general) over film that are quite
noticeable.  Now, if you shot with a monochromatic sensor in the first
place, that would make a difference, but still doesn't quite reach the
dynamic range of properly exposed/developed B&W film, and you have to spend
a bundle to get the amount of data available on a medium format negative.
If you are making small prints (4x6) then sure, I won't argue that point.
It's when you get to 11x14 or larger that the difference starts to become
substantial in my experience (and I have some rather high end digital
equipment).

> There are so many ways to do everything in Pshop, and I use the
> channel mixer method, which gives me the options of making the image
> look as if it is shot through any of the cool - blue or green- or
> hot- red or orange- filters. Do you really like grain? play with
> noise for awhile, and guess what?

I simply scan and print.  That seems like a lot less work to me ;-)

If your method satisfies your needs is what you should use, of course.  Each
has it's advantages and disadvantages, and using the "tools" that give you
the best results for your requirements is what's right for you.

Regards,

Austin