Digital BW, The Print

Sorry to jump in to a private conversation Steve, but how do you obtain 17
stops range. When I was doing large format B&W using the zone system, the
difference from dead black to paper white was 8/9 zones = 8/9 stops.
Admittedly I am a dinosaur of the TRI-X,  HC-110 era and have been out of
the darkroom for some time but 17 full stops sounds miraculous.

Roger


On 10/7/08 2:47 PM, "Steve Gledhill" <stephengledhill@...> wrote:

>  
>  
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> I'm a 5x4 B&W photographer.  Many of my more recent images are created in
> extremes of subject brightness.  And I want detail all the way from the
> deepest shadows to the brightest highlights.  I use 100Tmax and the new
> 400Tmax and with these films and my processing and scanning workflow I can
> capture on film and record in a TIFF file a 17 to 18 stop subject brightness
> range from a single exposure (as long as I judge my exposure correctly).
> This extreme is not a common occurrence but it does illustrate just what an
> amazing medium is B&W film.  Can colour film do that for me?  Certainly
> digital; sensors can't.  I pose the question because I suspect it cannot
> come near that, and for me and my particular requirements that is a critical
> question.  I'm not interested (in my core photographic activities) in what I
> could do with multiple exposures and HDR and all that faffing about.
> 
> For me, your comment about more data in colour capture (undeniable I
> suppose) presupposes that you are less interested in the extremes of shadow
> and highlight detail than me.  So my question is posed to find out if I
> could get even more if I used colour film.
> 
> OK - I could test to find out for myself, perhaps I should.  The trouble is,
> I have total personal control over my B&W processing but I'd have to farm
> out the colour processing and from my limited experience, that's a road I'd
> not want to travel.
> 
> Steve Gledhill
> 
> www.virtuallygrey.co.uk <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/>
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> btvarner
> Sent: 07 October 2008 18:55
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
> 
> Hi Tyler,
> Changing subject somewhat here but I wanted to respond to your last
> email. Not wanting to pick a nit but I believe that opinions are
> changing as to whether the highest quality B&W print has to originate
> from B&W film?
> 
> I have concluded (as I believe others have also) that the additional
> data in color captures (digital or transparency) lend themselves to
> the possibility of better B&W prints then do B&W film?
> 
> I realize that this may be speculation on my part, but it sure
> appears that way to me.
> 
> Nothing wrong with B&W film. I captured that way for many years.
> Just that now I believe that the Photoshop capabilities available to
> images that start out life as color can provide many more available
> expressions then straight B&W from the outset.
> 
> Just my opinion. Don't want new users to be left with the opinion
> that you have to start out with B&W film to have a great B&W print.
> Thanks!
> 
> Bruce
> http://BruceVarner.com
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Well this is the B&W list, and your stated desire was the highest
>> > quality, so one assumes you're shooting B&W film. As Bruce suggests,
>> > for that level of quality larger file sizes are just an accepted
>> >fact of life...........
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>  
>     



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