Digital BW, The Print

I almost forgot to mention the scanning back alternative for the 4x5
(if you have very deep 
pockets):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/better-light.shtml

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> 
wrote:
> I used Type 55 for a while, and have seriously considered using it
again.
> Some factors that have stopped me, so far, include that 55 has
become rather
> expensive on a per-shot basis (but cheaper than a darkroom or 22 mp
large
> sensor), it is not that easy to get a perfectly even "pull" when
developing
> the film, and the film does not lay very flat in those holders.  
> 
> Additionally, the flatbed scanners that we usually consider (i.e.,
the
> affordable ones like Epson's) are at best half as "efficient"
(sharp) as
> good, dedicated film scanners, which are much less efficient than
digital
> cameras in terms of image quality per pixel.  What all this means
is that
> for a given sharpness level on the print, the pixel count of a
> flatbed-scanned negative has to be many times the size of a good
film
> scanner file, which, in turn, has to be much larger than a direct
digital
> camera image.  I, personally, much prefer to deal with smaller (more
> "efficient") files.
> 
> The alternative of a better 4x5 scanner might get expensive, and I,
frankly,
> don't know how much more one can pull from a Type 55 over what the
best
> current Epson flatbed can record.  I have not explored that issue
very far.
> I would be curious if there is any non-drum option for getting a
4x5 scan
> that is as sharp as a 4000 dpi medium format scan from a good film
scanner.
> I have no doubt that a Type 55 scan on a "good" flatbed will be
much less
> grainy than a 100 ISO medium format scan, but I'm not sure the
sharpness
> will be equal.  (I again lament the demise of Tech Pan.)
> 
> However, for those without a darkroom (which could be my future in
five
> years given local real estate prices), it may be the best way to
really
> beautiful, very large prints.  It's a very intriguing possibility. 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Martin
> > Wesley
> > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 5:28 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was
> > 
> > The process of shooting, developing and flatbed scanning Polaroid
55 film
> > for digital B&W printing was described in depth by George de
Wolfe in View
> > Camera magazine in 2001(?). The back issues would be worth
finding for
> > anyone considering this procedure. http://www.viewcamera.com/
> > 
> > George and others have done some beautiful work with this.
> > 
> > Martin
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of skipc52
> > Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 6:09 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott
McLoughlin
> > <scott@a...> wrote: <snip>
> > 
> > >I'd likely dev the negs myself, and then scan the negs on a 4990
> > flatbed
> > > (not too pricey) and digi-print from there.  No room for a wet
> > darkroom. Scott
> > 
> > Try Polaroid Type 55 film on a 4x5 LF. Shoot for either a neg
> > orprint-not both-and
> > scan on a flatbed scanner for b/w digital printing without a
> > darkroom. Groovyborders if you
> > so choose...skip