Digital BW, The Print

Alot about scanning is very film dependent. Delta 100 scans
beautifully, pretty much the same for well exposed FP4+. But
I find HP5+ more of a challenge, and TMZ a hill too steep for
me to climb :-)

I read somewhere that a good digital capture is superior to a
amateur scanned (Nikon, etc.) frame of 135 format film, due
to noise, grain aliasing and other artifacts introduced during
the film scanning process.  I don't know whether this is true
or not, but I have found that digi printing an acceptable (to me)
11x14 or 11x17 from  digital capture (Nikon D70) is easier
and has a better chance of success than starting from a film
scan from my Nikon V.  Who knows.

Scott

Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> > How does this effect differ (if at all) between the "traditional" B/W
> > films compared to the C-41 process B/W films? I seem to recall a
> > couple people saying the C-41 based films work very nicely for
> > scanning, but I haven't had the chance to directly compare the two
> > types of film. Something I guess I should do one of these days. And
> > then there is the reversal B/W process to consider, is the grain the
> > same after it is reversed to provide a positive?
>
> Chromogenic B&W scans better than analogue B&W if grain isn't
> what you like and the scanner can't cope with the high Dmax of
> a specific analogue B&W films. But it also doesn't have the
> B&W grain that can be attractive as Tyler describes.
>
> Reversal B&W will be Agfa Scala in practice, not really suited
> to scanning either with the density range directed to
> projection. Availability of film and processing in view of
> AgfaPhoto being bankrupt should be considered too.
>
> [snip]


-- 
Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps
Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35
(Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act)