Digital BW, The Print

> From: Stephen Kobrin [mailto:kobrins@...]
>
> While I would like to experiment using a digital camera to produce
> B&W, it is a bigger step for me than most as the cameras I use are
> all manual rangefinders and slrs from the 50s-70s.  (I do not have a
> camera with auto-focus and do not own a zoom lens.)  Given the recent
> exchanges on this list, I realize that producing a reasonable B&W
> print from a digital camera involves a reasonably steep learning
> curve and that it will take considerable effort.  While I am
> certainly willing to invest the time, I want to make sure the
> equipment I use  is capable of giving me reasonable results -  say
> more or less equivalent to what I now get from scanning negatives
> produced with a Canon FTb.    I have access to a Canon G2 and wonder
> if that will do it.  If not, what would it take?  I assume that there
> is something on the market other than the pro digital slrs that is
> capable of producing reasonable results.  I just don't want to spend
> all of the time and effort learning to use a digital camera and then
> trash the idea because I had the wrong equipment.

The G2 isn't high resolution enough to satisfy you in the long run, but is
certainly a good enough image source for testing various workflows and
printers. The biggest question is the printer, but right off the bat you can
try printing B&W with any printer you've got, to see what limitations you
encounter. The basic choices are: print with color inks, and fight with
metamerism, and with the resulting variable color casts that come from
imperfect profiles; print with black ink only, and accept the greater grain
and lack of control over the color cast; print with quadtones and hextones,
but at the expense and difficulty of dealing with 3rd party add-ons and a
more complicated workflow. But whichever you choose, you'll be able to see
how a certain number of pixels corresponds to a certain level of sharpness
in the prints, and decide whether a DSLR will satisfy you.

For the image source, you can go in two directions: a digital camera, or
your existing cameras and a film scanner. There's an excellent mailing list
at http://www.halftone.co.uk/ for the latter. If you decide to go the full
digital route--which is a real pleasure because it's so convenient--you can
look into getting a better camera than the G2. Since you don't already have
an investment in auto-focus glass, you're not locked into one particular
manufacturer, and for the moment Canon seems to be leading the pack in
DSLRs. Ken suggested the 300D as a good entry level camera; if you can
invest more, I'd suggest the 20D. (If you're filthy rich, then there's the
1Ds Mark II.) In my opinion, the Canon zooms, at least the L series ones,
are sharp enough to push the limits of the sensors, so there's not much to
be gained sharpness-wise by sticking to primes.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...