Digital BW, The Print

such a tough question to answer because there are so many, many 
variables involved.  no short answers here but one can easily make a 
case for each being better than the other based on final image 
quality criteria as well as other pros and cons of each method.  
highly dependent on equipment, tools, techniques, workflow, $$$, etc.

one gripe i have about digital is the quality of the blacks.  just 
not the same as film, IMHO.  i shoot 12-bit RAW and convert to 16-bit 
prophoto RGB (maybe i should use a narrower color gamut with a better 
tone curve?) but can never achieve the kind of Dmax you see in an 
analog process.  it's a tradeoff between high Dmax and posterization 
with digital.  maybe it's occurring on the printing side.  i have yet 
to do a full test to see where best to focus on.

so it's more than one question or even two questions as someone 
suggested.  there are three different and distinct processes here 
that require very different skillsets - camera, scanner, 
printer/paper/inks/software.  one can even make the case there are 
four - editing in photoshop.  you need to align planets to maximize 
quality but that may not be feasible for many reasons.

consider this though...
if done right (i.e., using right film, development, etc.), some 
scanners offer true 16-bit scanning.  this has a lot of advantages 
for the critical shadow areas as it has sixteen times the amount of 
tonal transitions as does 12-bit digital (new cameras today have 14-
bits so 16-bit scanning only offers four times as many tonal 
transitions there).

if you do the math for a 4000 dpi scanner, you get a lot more 
megapixels than even the full frame DSLRs.

if you do a wet scan, you can increase the resolution of the image 
(albeit at the cost of more noticeable grain & dust so film/developer 
choice is a critical part of the quality equation).

good scanning software is necessary and some offer multipass scanning 
to increase the dynamic range even more than what's on the original 
negative.

you can even create different scan versions based on exposure and 
then use specialized software to process the image for additional 
increased resolution.

but all this is a whole lotta work when digital is so much easier and 
cheaper.  the question comes down to - what are you willing to trade 
off for quality?

best to experiment before making the investmnet.  try out some film 
(both color & b+w) and process and scan it at a lab like 
http://www.dr5.com.  then print trying out both digital and analog in 
continuous tone and inkjet at a lab like 
http://www.dalmationlab.com.  then you can make a good informed 
decision based on your objectives and parameters.

also, to address your comment...
you can scan in RGB rather than grayscale to use ICE and convert it 
to b+w in photoshop.  try out the new silver efex pro plug-in for 15 
days to see if that's something that fits with your needs.  good for 
toned prints on color papers.

hope this helps.  good luck and please give us a followup report on 
what you decided on that works for you.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "m_misiaszek" 
<m_misiaszek@...> wrote:
>
> I shoot 35mm film and want to print in B/W. Typically, what would 
give 
> the better B/W print in the end, shooting in color or in B/W? I 
> understand that Digital ICE does not work when scanning in B/W so 
it 
> would take some more time correcting dust in software. While I 
would 
> like to think it would be dust free I know that is effectively 
> impossible. 
> ~Mary
>