Digital BW, The Print

If you are so luky to have a medium format camera, my advise is: "use
it, it's always a good choice!". 35mm it is absolutely ok, but in case
of scanning negatives it would be better to buy a dedicated scanner
(drum scanner) to have good results. If you are planning to scan
occasionally, go for an external shop. Do not do it yourself if you
don't have a good scanner and a good software (with IR defects removal
and so on). 

Regarding the choice between B&W films or color films, I suggest to go
for B&W as generally the emulsion is deeper compared to color films
(where you need three emulsions sensitive to the three main colors). I
"was born" with digital camera, but if you ask to films experts (think
here you'll find a lot), I'm sure they'll clarify these tech items far
better than me.

Good shoots then.

Cheers,

Stefano




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "TFielder"
<tfielder@...> wrote:
>
> I'm heading out to Utah this weekend and to the Sierra's next month. 
> I understand that film scans may likely result in better data files
> for printing.  I have a Canon 20D; Nikon 35 mm film and a medium
> format film camera.  My question is, should I shoot the 35 mm and get
> high resolution scans or shoot with the median format?  After
> scanning, will the medium format platform out-perform the data I can
> get from the 35 mm sufficient to offset the additional effort?  My
> second question pertains to choice of film.  Should I shoot with
> Velvia, Tri-X or maybe just color film and convert to B & W in
> Photoshop?  Finally, does anyone have a recommendation for a reliable
> film-scanning service?
> 
> Thanks to all.  I appreciate your thoughts.
> 
> Tom
>