Digital BW, The Print

Using a facility that you haven't used before does not always provide a good
test. Using any lab, big or small requires a line of communication so that
you both know what you are expecting and or giving. 

 

You can not use an RGB setting and ICE with B&W films across the board with
equal or even any satisfaction. T400 CN or it replacement, XP2 will work
better than a Tech Pan, Delta, etc.  

 

If you are seeing posterization in your B&W prints from scans, somebody is
doing something wrong. It can come from many steps, but if you see it only
through your output, you need to look at output profiles. 

 

Why shoot film instead of digital? Well one very big reason is that you can
make a print in your darkroom and in your ink jet. If you are skilled in the
darkroom, perhaps one that is better than a Photoshop manipulated file and
limited output devices. 

 

And there is no guaranty that a digital capture is dust free either.  

 

Testing, testing, testing and direct observation of others process will get
you closer. Direct observation includes how others are printing in
darkrooms, their film choices including how those are processed. Their
choices in how to scan, what software workflow they observe and why. What
output choices they have made including color sets, or dedicated B&W sets,
paper or canvas, etc

 

Several years back at Photo Expo members of this group got together and
shared work on ONE chosen file, perhaps it would be good to bring samples of
various workflows so that curious minds could hold several samples at once.

 

Eric   

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of c1asia
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 1:42 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Scan color or B/W better for B/W printing?

 

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. <http://www.dr5.com.> com. then print trying out both
digital and analog in 
continuous tone and inkjet at a lab like 
http://www.dalmatio <http://www.dalmationlab.com.> nlab.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 DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@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
>

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]