Digital BW, The Print

Having finally ordered the 9600, I have been looking for nice things 
being said about 35mm digital hoping to skip the scanning era. Just 
when I think I am sold on a DCS 760 or maybe even a D60. Austin 
smashes my illusions to smithereens, not once but over and over 
again.

I justify my thoughts in digi snapping:

I only do portrait - soft is OK, gentle is nice too. Yes, with 
digital, my photographs can be more gentle. What's interpolation to 
skin? Hmm, but the hair will be jaggedy.

If they can stretch a D30 to 12x16, surely a D60 will go to 20x24, 
and you do step back further for bigger ones. Maybe I can give up 
cropping, compose perfectly whilst shooting and change all my print 
sizes to match the sensor proportion so I can use every last pixel.

No more dividing the frame up into grids and de-spotting film scans. 
Backwards and forwards, space/mouse over and over.

If I do this switch, I know I will I miss heading into the seedy 
area of town where my darkroom is, unlocking the ex maltings 
warehouse, and wondering down to the back, through the double dark 
curtains after checking evaporation of the dev' in the Hope 
overnight, pulling out the nights printing from my leather case that 
I got in San Francisco on a trip to Disneyland with my kids, laying 
out these marvelous antique memory strips of century old technology, 
the 120 film strip, slipping it in to the enlarger, focusing through 
the magnifier at full arm stretch whilst pondering how old fashioned 
this all will seem soon. I will miss my wierd shaped dodgers and the 
little inventions that I know I am the only one in the world to use. 
I test, test again, full size now, nearly there, one more time 40 
minutes later, the most beautiful richly goldern sepia 20x30 flops 
into the basket, I hold it up and see an exquisitely fine detailed 
optical/chemical photograph. I follow the intricate line of a single 
hair as it loops down the side of a face a full 20 inches, it's 
shiny on one side and thinner in one spot as it twists and curls 
across a full spectrum of goldern greys with narry a pixel, jaggy or 
microband to be seen.

I can't do it, I can't even see through the piddly view finder of an 
SLR. Looking through my Hasselblad bright viewfinder is BEING THERE. 
Your mascara is clumped on your second from the left eyelash, look 
straight at the lens not my head. Why do I have to spent multi 
thousands to make worse photographs?

I can't do this unless I have a full frame back for the Blad and 
that's it. In the meantime, I will have to put up with Bloody 
scanning.

I need a 120 scanner. I only do B&W, 24 frames per subject. I will 
produce low definition scans for previews and then scan about a 
dozen for printing on the 9600 from 8x10 upwards.

What is a Leaf and is it one frame scan at a time.  It would be good 
if I could automatically slide 3 frames or more through for previews 
at a time (like the Nikon 8000). Any suggestions or knowledge 
appreciated.

Garry Sarre
www.sarre.com.au

Garry,

as we all know... size isn't everything. There are things to be said about how 
grain and acutance and all those chemical controls form an image on film. It's 
about the "look" and your personal taste. A digital camera has it's own - and if 
you like it,  fine. For me, if I want grainless 100 ISO 8x10 color, a D30 is fine. 
But when I shoot high speed bw, I have no patience for digital "noise" in lieu of 
grain. Your choices may vary.

As for 120 scanners, I hear the Polaroid is pretty decent - but you may also 
pick up a used Imacon for a little more. The Leaf was great in its days, but 
probably a rare antique now (can't say more for fear that Austin and Todd will 
come after me <g>).

To do rough proof-prints, I find a flatbed indispensible.  I scan entire rolls, and 
make quick 8x10 prints on a laser printer. Enough to decide which is worth 
final pints.

Antonis




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "garrysarre" <garry@s...> wrote:

> Having finally ordered the 9600, I have been looking for nice things 
> being said about 35mm digital hoping to skip the scanning era. Just 
> when I think I am sold on a DCS 760 or maybe even a D60. Austin 
> smashes my illusions to smithereens, not once but over and over 
> again.
> 
> I justify my thoughts in digi snapping:
> 
> I only do portrait - soft is OK, gentle is nice too. Yes, with 
> digital, my photographs can be more gentle. What's interpolation to 
> skin? Hmm, but the hair will be jaggedy.
> 
> If they can stretch a D30 to 12x16, surely a D60 will go to 20x24, 
> and you do step back further for bigger ones. Maybe I can give up 
> cropping, compose perfectly whilst shooting and change all my print 
> sizes to match the sensor proportion so I can use every last pixel.
> 
> No more dividing the frame up into grids and de-spotting film scans. 
> Backwards and forwards, space/mouse over and over.
> 
> If I do this switch, I know I will I miss heading into the seedy 
> area of town where my darkroom is, unlocking the ex maltings 
> warehouse, and wondering down to the back, through the double dark 
> curtains after checking evaporation of the dev' in the Hope 
> overnight, pulling out the nights printing from my leather case that 
> I got in San Francisco on a trip to Disneyland with my kids, laying 
> out these marvelous antique memory strips of century old technology, 
> the 120 film strip, slipping it in to the enlarger, focusing through 
> the magnifier at full arm stretch whilst pondering how old fashioned 
> this all will seem soon. I will miss my wierd shaped dodgers and the 
> little inventions that I know I am the only one in the world to use. 
> I test, test again, full size now, nearly there, one more time 40 
> minutes later, the most beautiful richly goldern sepia 20x30 flops 
> into the basket, I hold it up and see an exquisitely fine detailed 
> optical/chemical photograph. I follow the intricate line of a single 
> hair as it loops down the side of a face a full 20 inches, it's 
> shiny on one side and thinner in one spot as it twists and curls 
> across a full spectrum of goldern greys with narry a pixel, jaggy or 
> microband to be seen.
> 
> I can't do it, I can't even see through the piddly view finder of an 
> SLR. Looking through my Hasselblad bright viewfinder is BEING THERE. 
> Your mascara is clumped on your second from the left eyelash, look 
> straight at the lens not my head. Why do I have to spent multi 
> thousands to make worse photographs?
> 
> I can't do this unless I have a full frame back for the Blad and 
> that's it. In the meantime, I will have to put up with Bloody 
> scanning.
> 
> I need a 120 scanner. I only do B&W, 24 frames per subject. I will 
> produce low definition scans for previews and then scan about a 
> dozen for printing on the 9600 from 8x10 upwards.
> 
> What is a Leaf and is it one frame scan at a time.  It would be good 
> if I could automatically slide 3 frames or more through for previews 
> at a time (like the Nikon 8000). Any suggestions or knowledge 
> appreciated.
> 
> Garry Sarre
> www.sarre.com.au

Antonis,

> The Leaf was great in
> its days,

In it's days?  I guess today is still "in it's days" then ;-)

None of the current scanner, even the Imacon, have all the aspects of the
Leaf...and certainly none surpass it for B&W.  Scans 35mm at 5080.  Scans up
to 4x5...scans B&W using a single ND filter...  Some do scan MF at higher
resolution, but I haven't missed the resolution, as they scan 35mm at a
lower resolution...and since the resolution is proportional throughout all
the film sizes it scans, it gives you plenty of resolution to print anything
an Epson 3000 can print for paper sizes from any format.

> but
> probably a rare antique now

Well, I'll put it up against any scanner alive for B&W.  Mine works fine
with W2k, it's as fast as any other (4 minutes for a 6x6 B&W scan)...and has
a better scanner driver than I've seen on any other scanner...no fuss, no
muss...setpoints, tonal curves, histogram...done.

Regards,

Austin