Digital BW, The Print

Hello Andre,

>> 3) Bottom line, though, is the bigger the sensor the better the
>>results.  My Pro-1 11x14s look sort of like what I'd expect from 
>>a 645

>This is getting even better. However, I usually print to 12.75" 
>on the short side. Would you say that the image will hold at that 
>size... 

Yes, and even better than that.  But before I describe it, we must
acknowledge that everyone has their own definition of what "sharp" is
and what "acceptable" is.  So take all this with a grain of salt and
try to interpolate into your own framework.   I decided to test the
limits and I made a portrait of a friend and printed sections of it at
continually higher magnifications just to see where the limits were.

I got all the way up to 22x30 and still had an acceptable print.  What
I mean by that is that from 2 or 3 ft away (or more) it looks "sharp"
(meaning it doesn't look soft or fuzzy or out of focus), I can see
individual skin pores and hairs, and, importantly, there is no grain.
 Looking closely of course I can see some softness, and with a loupe
can see some tiny stair-stepping on diagonals.  But I know I could
hang a
22x30 portrait on a wall and people would marvel at it.  Is it as good
as 4x5 film?  Of course not, so whether this is "acceptable" depends
on the viewer's standards.


>...or is there a point where it will deteriorate really fast. 

Well, it actually seems to deteriorate very slowly.  The point of
unacceptability sneaks up on you, and it's hard to decide exactly
where it is.  Since there is no grain that gets bigger, it's mainly a
matter of pixellation.  Whether pixellation forces a limit before
image quality goes is really a matter of lens quality.  My 4mp Canon
G3 has a fine lens, but at 4mp, pixellation halted enlargement before
lens quality gave out.  IOW, the lens was ahead of the resolution. 
With the Pro-1, 8mp allows huge enlargement before pixellation becomes
an issue.  So the question becomes whether the lens is up to it.  For
the Pro-1 the answer is a resounding "Yes".  I find it to be a superb
match, so much so that it's hard to decide where the limit is.

So I'm sure with the bigger sensors the upper limits are even greater.
But you must be willing to buy the good glass.  Without film grain
getting in the way, the sensors will take the lens to its limit.

I said this before, and Alan also mentioned it in his post: the old
constraints no longer apply.  It's a whole new ball game and we have
to learn the new rules.  



>And since you do not mention it, I gather that you do not have any 
>problems with print tonality from digital images ?

No, not at all.  I shoot raw and during the conversion to BW can
choose from a wide range of effects.  Prints from my 2200 show the
subtlest gradation.  If I can see it on the screen I can see it in the
print.  In fact, just the opposite - I often see things in the print I
can't see on screen.  These printers are incredibly sensitive.


>I've read numerous times that the images from a digital camera is
>somewhat linear, whatever that means. Would you say that applying 
>an S-curve in Photoshop helps restore some analog (film) look about 
>the image ?

The clue to the answer is in your statement "whatever that means".  I
would say "yes", except it would imply that I agree with the linear
idea.  I don't perceive any effect that is so different that I would
give it a name such as "linear".  That term doesn't have any real
practical meaning for me.  IMO we get too caught up in all the
theories.  I'm not saying they aren't true, but my own practical
experience is that it simply doesn't matter and it's a waste of time
to dwell on it.  I just take the picture and work with it.   

I've learned how to convert to BW and get pleasing tones, and have
learned how to do things in PS to get what I want in the final image.
 If I think it needs more or less contrast somewhere then I just do
it.  If those theories are at work...well, so what?  Just do whatever
you think needs to be done.  You will intuitively learn by doing.  I
found that my photographic and printing instincts from years in the
darkroom adapted easily (and quickly) to digital.  As I learned more
about PS I found that I had clearer ideas about what I wanted to
achieve and how to go about it.


>Also, do you have a favorite method of converting to b&w or do you
>choose from many depending on the image.

For a while I tried lots of different approaches, but narrowed it down
to one method.  However I make lots of different choices within that
method, depending on the image.  So it's not a rigid formula that I
apply to every image.  It's described on my web site in article #7
(link below).

Regards,
Clayton


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