Digital BW, The Print

Thanks Ken and Paul,

I have been printing using MIS inks for a number of years and now use 
a 1280 with the UT2 inkset and am pleased with the results.  However, 
to this point I have been scanning film.  My question really revolved 
around trying digital capture rather than film.  However, I think 
that you both provided enought information about cameras and the G2 
to get me going.

Steve


-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul D. DeRocco" 
<pderocco@i...> wrote:
> > From: Stephen Kobrin [mailto:kobrins@w...]
> >
> > 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@i...