Digital BW, The Print

>... 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?

I'm not sure about the single exposure.  I didn't have my spot meter with me
for the digital shot -- a mistake I won't make in the future.  Given the
"slide-like" 7 stop dynamic range, I'm going back to carrying my Pentax spot
meter.

Medium format, Tech Pan film would probably have ended up making a better
image with less manipulation, however.  Also, I would have been able to
print larger than 16x20 with MF TP.

MF Tmax 100 would probably not have made as good an image, however.  The
grain in the foggy parts of the image would have shown.  With the Canon 8 mp
image, the foggy areas are totally smooth, and I really like that.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

__________________________






> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> Jasutis
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 5:47 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>