Digital BW, The Print

Rob, I am not meaningfully trying to bend your words, but just put them in
context. Film vs. digital is based on context of images being discussed; HDR
look and Mr. Berts use of TechPan and technidol. Digital did not rise out of
a vacuum so I am just adding to the discussion about the connection between
those points, and for those on the list that have never used Techpan. Also,
since the digital B&W group is the deal, and scanning is part of the process
to acquire files, any and all discussion that includes information pertinent
to  capture on film, the scanning and processing of files works for me. 

 

Images on my web sites contain images from original film formats from 110,
127, 2 1/4 and 4x5 as well as scanned prints. Images also include direct
digital capture. Images appearing on my sites have been there from as early
1994 to present. So without a direct reference, I have no idea as to which
images you refer. Scans have been made by me, for me and over many years.
There even be some there that are not much more than unedited scans with
their flaws of dust etc. 

 

I took a quick peek at your site, and quite a few images have what appears
to be excessive amounts of color noise. Perhaps due to over use of clarity,
fill, or just format of images to web. If those are all digital, you might
want to pick back up the Graphic and load a few sheets of 4x5 and have some
fun : )     

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Johnston
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 12:43 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts

 

  


"The original comments were not being made RAW vs JPEG but rather what RAW
gave you. We were looking at film vs digital in a tonal sense. We had not
gone down the path of format; 35mm vs 8x10, 1/2 frame vs Full frame."

Eric,
Maybe what is confusing me, is why there is even a discussion about "film vs
digital" in a forum about "Digital BW." There are many other locations for
such a discussion. There is no comparison, its talking apples and oranges.
Both are fruit, you may have a preference, but they will never taste the
same. 

After using film for 72 years and digital for one, will never go back to
film. Doubt any discussion it would convince anyone, who chooses to use
digital... When I can get what is desired in a finished print from digital,
that is all that counts. Went to your website, both of them. If those images
are shot with film, am not convinced that you are doing better with film,
than can be done with digital.

Ye Ol' Codger Bob, & Nadine

Over 2000 Photos of our Travels.
http://rjohnston. <http://rjohnston.zenfolio.com/> zenfolio.com/

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





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