Digital BW, The Print

Hello everyone,,I'm currently using a 35mm Nikon and a Mamiya RB67.
I print my own B&W Portraits usually to 11x14,,sometimes 16X20. I'm 
considering going Digital and selling all my gear,Buying a fuji S2 
Pro,or a cannon D60,until Feveon makes a chip that is 35mm size with 
6+ megapixals in something other than a sigma body.I came to this 
conclusion buy reading web sites. I don't personally know any body 
digital. I'm wondering if I will get the Quality Prints I'm use to?
I'm considering an Epson 1280 or 3000. Piezography or Genuine 
Fractals,can they be used together? I'm looking at a Mac G4 dual gig.
I would appreciate any feed back.am I on the right track in my 
choices? Thanks Bob Hill ,San Clemente Island Ca. 
hotshovel@...

> I'm wondering if I will get the Quality Prints I'm use to?

It depends on what you mean by "quality".  Digital holds edge information
very well, but lacks in detail information, compared to film.

Personally, though I use digital backs for my Hasselblad, and have a Leaf
Lumina scanning camera, I am waiting for a few years before delving into
35mm digital...as you said, for the sensors to be full-frame.  I am really
waiting for something that is better than I want, simply so it won't be so
easily outdated....as what ever you buy today, will be well outdated in two
years...

Regards,

Austin

Hi,

Let me offer a few personal observations, as a user of a Fuji S1 Pro, 
and also a Large fomat camera, transparencies from which I drum 
scan.  

I use the S1 mainly for portraits.  I notice you are in to 
portraits.  I thinks the S1 excells at portraits, so much so that I 
ditched my medium format camera and lenses when I found I got better 
results from the S1.  I cannot really explain this, as it seems 
logically absurd.  It may have something to do with the Fuji 
interpolation system.  I always have the S1 set to 6mp output, which 
of course involves in-camera "super-CCD" interplolation. Whatever the 
reason the results are great.  I imagine they will be even better 
with the S2.

With other material, the S1 is very good, but it cannot compete of 
course with Large Format.  It's still a lot better than I expected, 
however.  I'm looking right at this moment at a B&W Piezography print 
I have just printed of a windmill, rezzed up with Genuine Fractals to 
300 dpi at 17" x 11", and then sharpened with Nik Sharpener before 
printing.  From 2 feet away, it looks superb.  Closer up, you start 
to notice the absence of absolute detail in the fine brickwork, but 
how often do you look that closely at prints?

Based on my S1 experience, I would therefore expect you to be very 
happy with the S2 for portrait work, and happy with it also for other 
work.  If you get it, I doubt you'll touch your 35mm Nikon  ever 
again, excpet to sell it :-).  In fact, I'd expect your Mamiya RB67 
to stay on the shelf most of the time. I wouldn't wait around for 
Foveon.  What we have now is very good, and getting better.  

--
Quentin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "elcariso" <hotshovel@h...> 
wrote:
> Hello everyone,,I'm currently using a 35mm Nikon and a Mamiya RB67.
> I print my own B&W Portraits usually to 11x14,,sometimes 16X20. I'm 
> considering going Digital and selling all my gear,Buying a fuji S2 
> Pro,or a cannon D60,until Feveon makes a chip that is 35mm size 
with 
> 6+ megapixals in something other than a sigma body.I came to this 
> conclusion buy reading web sites. I don't personally know any body 
> digital. I'm wondering if I will get the Quality Prints I'm use to?
> I'm considering an Epson 1280 or 3000. Piezography or Genuine 
> Fractals,can they be used together? I'm looking at a Mac G4 dual 
gig.

> I would appreciate any feed back.am I on the right track in my 
> choices? Thanks Bob Hill ,San Clemente Island Ca. 
> hotshovel@h...

Bob

I own a  Cannon D-30 and have shot with the 1D. There are a couple of 
things that make the D-30 and also the D-60 and 1D 
stand out from the rest. The first is the image quality you start with. 
I am a editorial photographer, so I have the chance to compare images 
shot under the same condition with different cameras. At this point I 
will chose the Cannon every time. The other advantage with the Cannon 
cameras is the ability to shoot in the raw mode. Once developed you 
end up with a 17.8 mb, 16 bit, tiff file. If you will learn to work up 
your photo as much as posible in 16 bit before you convert to 8 bit and 
then use Genuine Fractals to interpolate the file size up, I think you 
will be happy with the results. I print with both the Piezo and the MIS 
inks. I think for your Portraits you would like the MIS inks better.

One more thing. The main thing that will determine the quality of the 
prints that you can produce is not the Camera or the inks you use, but 
your photoshop skills. I have had been working up color photos to be 
used in news papers and magazines with photoshop since the early 90's, 
but I have quadrupled my photoshop skills since trying to make good BW 
prints.

Good luck

Steve


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "elcariso" <hotshovel@h...> 
wrote:

> Hello everyone,,I'm currently using a 35mm Nikon and a Mamiya RB67.
> I print my own B&W Portraits usually to 11x14,,sometimes 16X20. I'm 
> considering going Digital and selling all my gear,Buying a fuji S2 
> Pro,or a cannon D60,until Feveon makes a chip that is 35mm size with 
> 6+ megapixals in something other than a sigma body.I came to this 
> conclusion buy reading web sites. I don't personally know any body 
> digital. I'm wondering if I will get the Quality Prints I'm use to?
> I'm considering an Epson 1280 or 3000. Piezography or Genuine 
> Fractals,can they be used together? I'm looking at a Mac G4 dual gig.
> I would appreciate any feed back.am I on the right track in my 
> choices? Thanks Bob Hill ,San Clemente Island Ca. 
> hotshovel@h...

Hi Steve,

> The other advantage with the Cannon
> cameras is the ability to shoot in the raw mode. Once developed you
> end up with a 17.8 mb, 16 bit, tiff file.

What do you use to process the Bayer pattern CCD data?

For those that don't know, when you get raw data from a Bayer patterned CCD
camera, you typically get only one of the three color values per "data
point" (it's not really a pixel in the sense of a typical pixel...which will
have all three colors, for a color pixel that is)...and that needs to be
processed to resolve the color information from individual color data to
full pixel color values, which will then contain all three colors.  That
typically happens in the camera, but some people prefer using external (to
the camera) programs, as they feel these programs give them better results.

Regards,

Austin

If Bob has Nikon lenses, he might want to stick with that system 
(unless they are older style lenses, some of which won't work on the 
S2).  You then also retain the option of moving to a Nikon or Kodak 
digital camera in the future.  

Good as the D30 is, I personally prefer S1.
--
Quentin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "steven0356" <stevenr@m...> 
wrote:
> Bob
> 
> I own a  Cannon D-30 and have shot with the 1D. There are a couple 
of 
> things that make the D-30 and also the D-60 and 1D 
> stand out from the rest. The first is the image quality you start 
with. 
> I am a editorial photographer, so I have the chance to compare 
images 
> shot under the same condition with different cameras. At this point 
I 
> will chose the Cannon every time. The other advantage with the 
Cannon 
> cameras is the ability to shoot in the raw mode. Once developed you 
> end up with a 17.8 mb, 16 bit, tiff file. If you will learn to work 
up 
> your photo as much as posible in 16 bit before you convert to 8 bit 
and 
> then use Genuine Fractals to interpolate the file size up, I think 
you 
> will be happy with the results. I print with both the Piezo and the 
MIS 
> inks. I think for your Portraits you would like the MIS inks better.
> 
> One more thing. The main thing that will determine the quality of 
the 
> prints that you can produce is not the Camera or the inks you use, 
but 
> your photoshop skills. I have had been working up color photos to 
be 
> used in news papers and magazines with photoshop since the early 
90's, 
> but I have quadrupled my photoshop skills since trying to make good 
BW 
> prints.
> 
> Good luck
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "elcariso" 
<hotshovel@h...> 
> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,,I'm currently using a 35mm Nikon and a Mamiya 
RB67.
> > I print my own B&W Portraits usually to 11x14,,sometimes 16X20. 
I'm 
> > considering going Digital and selling all my gear,Buying a fuji 
S2 
> > Pro,or a cannon D60,until Feveon makes a chip that is 35mm size 
with 
> > 6+ megapixals in something other than a sigma body.I came to this 
> > conclusion buy reading web sites. I don't personally know any 
body 
> > digital. I'm wondering if I will get the Quality Prints I'm use 
to?
> > I'm considering an Epson 1280 or 3000. Piezography or Genuine 
> > Fractals,can they be used together? I'm looking at a Mac G4 dual 
gig.

> > I would appreciate any feed back.am I on the right track in my 
> > choices? Thanks Bob Hill ,San Clemente Island Ca. 
> > hotshovel@h...

> Good as the D30 is, I personally prefer S1.

Hi Quentin,

Can you get "raw" data out of the S1?  Somehow I suspect not, as it requires
very special processing...but I figured I'd ask anyway...

Regards,

Austin

Austin,

Yesterday a firnd of mine came over and we shot his Phase One H20 back on a
Hasselblad. We used the 30mm fisheye, 120 macro and another lens. The H20 is
a 4000x4000 chip bundled with Phase One's propprietary software. We shot a
scene on Provia 6x6 and the H20.  We ran it to the lab and had it processed.

A couple of hours later we got it back and compared the images after drum
scanning the provia on a Howtek D4000.

I hate to say it, but the H20 image was sharper, had better color fidelity.
The image was amazing.  I think the file size is 48mb or something close to
that. Detail in the digital image was as good if not better than the
transparancy.

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 11:25 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Digital vs Film ? will I be Happy????


>
> > I'm wondering if I will get the Quality Prints I'm use to?
>
> It depends on what you mean by "quality".  Digital holds edge information
> very well, but lacks in detail information, compared to film.
>
> Personally, though I use digital backs for my Hasselblad, and have a Leaf
> Lumina scanning camera, I am waiting for a few years before delving into
> 35mm digital...as you said, for the sensors to be full-frame.  I am really
> waiting for something that is better than I want, simply so it won't be so
> easily outdated....as what ever you buy today, will be well outdated in
two
> years...
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I down load the raw images on to my hard drive and use the Cannon
software as a starting point. I develop the images as linear 
tiffs. and use Fred Miranda's action from there
(http://www.fredmiranda.com/). This is a long and tedious process, but 
using the batch Photoshop option to automate the work, helps. I
understand there is a second party browser that you can 
use to develop the raw files with, but I hear it's not much better then Cannon's.

With the D-30 you can change the color balance before you develop the
file. But with the 1D you can correct exposures 
and color balance problems before developing, giving you a much better
file to start with. I am hoping that the D-60 
has this same options.

Obviously I would only do this in non-deadline situations.

Steve


Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> > The other advantage with the Cannon
> > cameras is the ability to shoot in the raw mode. Once developed you
> > end up with a 17.8 mb, 16 bit, tiff file.
> 
> What do you use to process the Bayer pattern CCD data?
> 
> For those that don't know, when you get raw data from a Bayer
> patterned CCD
> camera, you typically get only one of the three color values per "data
> point" (it's not really a pixel in the sense of a typical
> pixel...which will
> have all three colors, for a color pixel that is)...and that needs to
> be
> processed to resolve the color information from individual color data
> to
> full pixel color values, which will then contain all three colors.
> That
> typically happens in the camera, but some people prefer using external
> (to
> the camera) programs, as they feel these programs give them better
> results.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
>                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>                        ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Austin,

The one thing that was annoying and yet interesting was viewing screen mask
that Phase One priovides to provide feedback to the photographer. It is a
clear mask with a milky looking border that outlines the 3.7x3.7 chip area.
This stuff is getting better and better. another couple of years and it will
be a whole different ball game.

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 6:52 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Digital vs Film ? will I be Happy????


> Hi Michael,
>
> > I hate to say it, but the H20 image was sharper, had better color
> > fidelity.
>
> I don't doubt that at all!  I believe the H20 does automatic sharpening in
> the back/software, which, of course, makes comparisons tougher...  That
back
> isn't a full frame back, it's 3.7cm x 3.7cm, which is 13.7cm sq, and film
is
> 36cm sq, so it's only covering a bit more than 1/3rd the area that film
> covers...  Did you compensate for that and compare images covering the
> "exact" same scene?
>
> But yes, color fidelity of digital backs (and stand alone digital cameras
> too) are simply amazing.  I have two Hasselblad backs, one scanning and
one
> one shot, and a Leaf Lumina...and I had a Dicomed long before...
>
> > The image was amazing.  I think the file size is 48mb or
> > something close to
> > that.
>
> That sounds right.  It's 4k x 4k and 8 bits/color...with three colors so 3
> bytes/color x 16M pixels = 48M bytes...
>
> > Detail in the digital image was as good if not better than the
> > transparancy.
>
> That I have found to not be true for decent film/development, I still get
> more detail from film...but it has to be damn good film!  The scanning
back
> gives FAR better detail than the one shot, but it really only works in the
> studio.
>
> As a side note, I've always liked the 127 size (1.5" x 1.5") like the
> Rolleiflex Baby Gray size...I good "new" camera format would be that size
> ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Hi Michael,

> I hate to say it, but the H20 image was sharper, had better color
> fidelity.

I don't doubt that at all!  I believe the H20 does automatic sharpening in
the back/software, which, of course, makes comparisons tougher...  That back
isn't a full frame back, it's 3.7cm x 3.7cm, which is 13.7cm sq, and film is
36cm sq, so it's only covering a bit more than 1/3rd the area that film
covers...  Did you compensate for that and compare images covering the
"exact" same scene?

But yes, color fidelity of digital backs (and stand alone digital cameras
too) are simply amazing.  I have two Hasselblad backs, one scanning and one
one shot, and a Leaf Lumina...and I had a Dicomed long before...

> The image was amazing.  I think the file size is 48mb or
> something close to
> that.

That sounds right.  It's 4k x 4k and 8 bits/color...with three colors so 3
bytes/color x 16M pixels = 48M bytes...

> Detail in the digital image was as good if not better than the
> transparancy.

That I have found to not be true for decent film/development, I still get
more detail from film...but it has to be damn good film!  The scanning back
gives FAR better detail than the one shot, but it really only works in the
studio.

As a side note, I've always liked the 127 size (1.5" x 1.5") like the
Rolleiflex Baby Gray size...I good "new" camera format would be that size
;-)

Regards,

Austin

> This stuff is getting better and better. another couple of years
> and it will
> be a whole different ball game.

Exactly!  That is why I suggest people wait until they can get a digital
camera that is NOT a compromise to them in any way...so it'll be a useful
tool for many many years, even if what they have has been surpassed.  Kind
of like 14.1" 1024x768 notebook screens.  They seem to be the staple
now...and anything above that is really more specialty use than common
use...

Regards,

Austin

> I own a  Cannon D-30 and have shot with the 1D. There are a couple of
> things that make the D-30 and also the D-60 and 1D stand out from the
> rest. The first is the image quality you start with. I am a editorial
> photographer, so I have the chance to compare images shot under the same
> condition with different cameras. At this point I will chose the Cannon
> every time. The other advantage with the Cannon cameras is the ability to
> shoot in the raw mode. Once developed you end up with a 17.8 mb, 16 bit,
> tiff file. If you will learn to work up your photo as much as posible in
> 16 bit before you convert to 8 bit and then use Genuine Fractals to
> interpolate the file size up,

Steven - I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but Canon is NOT the only digtial camera 
with the ability to shoot and allow manipulation of RAW files.

I won't even address your comment that you can pick out a digital Canon photo from a 
batch of all the rest. I'd really like to put that one to a fair and impartial blind test.  I have shot 
with both the Canon and the D1X. I can not tell the difference in a blind test. I challenge 
anyone else to do so either. Besides, making such sweeping comments about the D30, 
D60, 1D and D1X is comparing apples to oranges. They are not all even in the same class. 
To compare a $2,000 body to a $5,000 and say it yields better images 100% of the time?  I 
can appreciate your brand name loyalty but such broad stroked comments are simply not to 
be taken as gospel.

I have also done thorough side by side tests with Genuine Fractals and Photoshop 6 prints. 
(small sections greatly enlarged and printed on the same printers - both inkjet and wet 
prints) I have not been able to tell the difference there either.  IMHO, PS6 does just as good 
of a job as GF and does it a whole bunch FASTER!

Greg

In terms of quality of transformation, all methods are identical.

This is because the third party tools like Bibble and BreezeBrowser use 
the Canon SDK to do the actual conversion.

The advantage of the third party tools is higher speed compared to the 
Canon tools, although Canon have begun to strike back with a new tool 
called the Raw File Converter. 



In article <NABBLIJOIFAICKBIEPJJEEBKPKAA.darkroom@...>, 
darkroom@... (Austin Franklin) wrote:

> Hi Steve,
> 
> > The other advantage with the Cannon
> > cameras is the ability to shoot in the raw mode. Once developed you
> > end up with a 17.8 mb, 16 bit, tiff file.
> 
> What do you use to process the Bayer pattern CCD data?
> 
> For those that don't know, when you get raw data from a Bayer patterned 
> CCD
> camera, you typically get only one of the three color values per "data
> point" (it's not really a pixel in the sense of a typical pixel...which 
> will
> have all three colors, for a color pixel that is)...and that needs to be
> processed to resolve the color information from individual color data to
> full pixel color values, which will then contain all three colors.  That
> typically happens in the camera, but some people prefer using external 
> (to
> the camera) programs, as they feel these programs give them better 
> results.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin