Digital BW, The Print

The long shoulder many are familiar with on film is so different from
the sharp cut-off on digital that it is hard to transition from one to
the other. 
I found that a raw coverter* that allows easy manipulation of the
"characteristic curve", followed by hours of trial and error learning,
goes some way to restore the look in the highlights.  I frequently
reduce the highlight contrast to around 1/3, or less, of the midtone
contrast. Sometimes I like the highlights better than all but a few of
my best negatives (mostly Tech. Pan in various soups, long ago).
It is not the same as film processed for long scale though, and
getting the shadows right ranges from hard to close to impossible
depending on the contrast range of the scene. 


Ken
   


*the only one I've used in which this is convenient is C1 LE, but I do
not use PS/ACR so can't compare.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "osroubek"
<o.sroubek@c...> wrote:
> I have recently started shooting with a Canon  20D from shooting MF
> then scanning on the 
> MInolta Mulit Pro.  I shoot in RAW format and convert with Adobe
> Camera Raw in CS2.  The 
> MF shots were on transparency then converted to BW in PS using
> usually the
> channel mixer.  I 
> notice that the scanned film when converted to black and white
> results in a better and 
> cleaner looking BW image and the prints are also noticeably better
in
> terms of contrast and 
> depth. Print sizes vary from 8x10 to 16x20 on my Epson 7600 using UC
> inks(Photo Black) 
> usually on EnH matte or Hahnemule PH rag.  Just may be me but I was
> wondering what 
> others may think and
> would greatly 
> appreciate any comments.  I have tried some of the plugins out there
> for BW conversion 
> but I think the result is similar to that obtained in PS.