Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> "Osroubek" wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I have recently started shooting with a Canon  20D from shooting 
MF
> > then scanning on the Minolta Multi 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 ...
> 
> I have also started using the 8 MP Canon chip in the XT and 
enlarge to 16 x
> 20.  My other cameras are MF.  What I've found is that the 8 mp 
chip can
> make a 16 x 20 that is very close to the film shot, but it 
probably takes
> more work.  Here are some of my observations. (The shot I just 
worked up is
> on my web page, below.)
>  
> The limited latitude of the sensor requires bracketing in many 
shots, also
> not the usual sun-lit scenic.
> 
> The noise/grain level of the digital image is less than Tmax 100 
in the
> bright areas, but can be a problem in dark smooth areas.
> 
> The depth of field advantages of the small sensor are significant.
> 
> CS2 smart sharpening is very useful, but still not enough (or I'm 
not good
> enough with it) to avoid too-bright small highlights in some areas 
by the
> time the image is sharp enough.  To correct for this, I have to us 
a curve
> to pull these down in the affected area.
> 
> The very high contrast edges may require that the green channel 
alone be
> used.  The green channel, maybe because it has 2 sensors, seems to 
give the
> best image in some areas.
> 
> I have not found third party raw converters to be better than the 
CS2
> download.
> 
> Overall, based on very limited experience, I'd say 8 mp can make a 
good 16 x
> 20 -- not perfect, but then neither is MF 100 ISO film.  Neither 
can match
> MF Tech Pan, but that film is history (aside from the pile in my 
freezer).
> Finding workflows to get around the limited latitude is probably 
the area
> where more work is most needed.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

I went an checked out your website to see the image you were talking 
about. A very impressive image. You talk about the extra work needed 
to produce this image from a digital capture. I may be reading you 
wrong, but are you saying that if you had been using film, you could 
have gotten the same or better results with a single exposure? and 
less manipulation?