Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 11/27/2003 10:27:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> I'd once assumed I'd wind up with two printers, one dedicated to b&w, 
> the other to color.  
> 
> But it now appears I'll wind up with two printers, one dedicated to 
> matte and the other to glossy--and, unless I'm willing to pay another 
> $500 apiece for a RIP, neither of which will produce neutral, 
> metamerism-free b&W!
> 
> Where does it end? ;)
> 
> Hmmm... as I consider this further, I wonder how the new 
> ultrachrome "hi-gloss" inks used in the R800 will fare for matte 
> prints.  If they pass that test, maybe one printer will accomplish 
> useable prints on both types of paper.  If that's the case, why on 
> earth didn't Epson make the new 4000 ultrachrome hi-gloss compatible, 
> rather than producing another matte-only printing device?


I'm using this post as a springboard for something that has been on my mind 
for quite some time now. In the days of the darkroom, no one would make a B&W 
on color paper. You shot B&W film and used B&W paper and fovorite soups for all 
that. Never the twain had met. Trying to print on matte papers (not readily 
avalable anyhow_ produced pure mud.

So, my question is, why do we have such a double standard for digital?

Color darkrooms with 16x20 processors were at least a $25,000 investment to 
"do it right"
B&W with Zone VI cold lights, regulated supplies, temperatrue compensated 
timers, etc. probably came to about $5,000 with the best enlarger lenses (okay 
maybe a grand used, but my point remains).

So now we can create gorgous results with dedicated printers that cost $3,000 
or less and we still BITCH? 

This stuff is truly more affordable than ever for the serious hobbyist.

Heck I paid $9,000 for my first Kodak dye sublimation printer in 1996 and 
modern inkjets do a much better job for 1/20th the price and about 1/2 to 1/4 
material cost.

I have owned over a dozen inkjet printers since the original Epson Stylus and 
now have 8 of them for various dedicated tasks.

3 different B&W setups, one for glossy prints and canvas, one for matte 
papers, etc.

Good printers are cheap, computers are cheap, what's wrong with dedicating a 
printer and/or a computer to a specific task only?

In the same vein, everyone wants "THE" camera to do everything 
digital.......WHY?

When I shot film, I had every format from 35mm to 8x10 (still have the 4x5 
for B&W and color DiComed Scan back) along with full range of glass for all. 
Each one was needed for a different job.

So, again, I ask, why the double standard for digital????????????????????????

Claude Jodoin
TEch. Editor/writer
Rangefinder mag.
Digital output since 1986
Filmless since 1999


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

Springboard? More like trying to catapult across a mine field, in 
this case> ;-)

At least part of the problem, IMO, is how people regard 
black-and-white photography in general. I can well remember 
someone asking me, about a decade ago, "Why bother with 
black-and-white? The world's in color. We have color film. What's 
the point?". This was from someone old enogh to remember 
when color film, while available, was considered a luxury 
available to a few; everyone else "settled" for black-and-white.

I don't think this overall perception has disappeared, and in the 
realm of digital photography - from camera to computer to printer 
- b/w is, for the most part, considered superfluous, if not 
downright illogical. Color is where the action - and the money - 
is. (It's also one of the reasons I've basically rejected digital 
capture for my own work - every technique for "creating" b/w from 
color images, *for me*, simply inadequate, although others have 
made a decent go of it).

There's also a "digital" mindset in action, I feel, where 
expediency trumps any previous aesthetic in place, especially as 
photography becaomes absorbed into the casual "Hey, it's all 
media to me" mix of mass entertainment/diversion (won't get 
started on *that*, but let's just say I'm a fan of Neil Postman and 
Jerry Mander). The faster people can get stuff done, the faster 
they *want* stuff done, and are frequently quite willing to sacrifice 
a number of things - quality included - if it means getting to "point 
B" faster. "Black-and-white? Maybe for scratching an occasional 
"retro" itch, but make it snappy and easy, okay?"

For me, and, I'll assume (yeah, I know that joke too) many, if not 
most subscribing this group, "black-and-white" is more than "the 
absence of color". But that is decidedly a minority opinion. Thank 
goodness there are enough people who understand this to keep 
b/w film sales going (in fact, according to the folks from 
Rochester, b/w film sales are *up* 25% - did someone forget a 
decimal point somewhere?). Now, if we could only get Kodak to 
make another dedicated digital camera, but I'm not hopeful - how 
many b/w dispos...I mean, single-use cameras are on the 
market?

- Barrett

-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
claudej1@a... wrote:

> I'm using this post as a springboard for something that has 
>been on my mind for quite some time now. In the days of the 
>darkroom, no one would make a B&W on color paper. You shot 
>B&W film and used B&W paper and fovorite soups for all 
>that. Never the twain had met. Trying to print on matte papers 
>(not readily avalable anyhow_ produced pure mud.
> 
>So, my question is, why do we have such a double standard for 
>digital?
> 
> Color darkrooms with 16x20 processors were at least a 
>$25,000 investment to "do it right" B&W with Zone VI cold lights, 
>regulated supplies, temperatrue compensated timers, etc. 
>probably came to about $5,000 with the best enlarger lenses 
>(okay maybe a grand used, but my point remains).
> 
> So now we can create gorgous results with dedicated printers 
>that cost $3,000 or less and we still BITCH? 
> 
>This stuff is truly more affordable than ever for the serious 
>hobbyist.
> 
>Heck I paid $9,000 for my first Kodak dye sublimation printer in 
>1996 and modern inkjets do a much better job for 1/20th the 
>price and about 1/2 to 1/4 material cost.
> 
>I have owned over a dozen inkjet printers since the original 
>Epson Stylus and now have 8 of them for various dedicated 
>tasks.
> 
>3 different B&W setups, one for glossy prints and canvas, one 
>for matte papers, etc.
> 
>Good printers are cheap, computers are cheap, what's wrong 
>with dedicating a printer and/or a computer to a specific task 
>only?
> 
>In the same vein, everyone wants "THE" camera to do 
>everything digital.......WHY?
> 
>When I shot film, I had every format from 35mm to 8x10 (still 
>have the 4x5 for B&W and color DiComed Scan back) along 
>with full range of glass for all. Each one was needed for a 
>different job.
> 
>So, again, I ask, why the double standard for 
>digital????????????????????????
> 
> Claude Jodoin
> TEch. Editor/writer
> Rangefinder mag.
> Digital output since 1986
> Filmless since 1999
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Barrett,

Notice how people shooting digital shot large numbers of images. They 
need 1 Gig flash memory cards or micro drives. I've never shot that much 
35 mm film (when I shoot 35 mm film) in at one time in my life.

And the time, labor, patients that goes in a 4x5 - I'm not sure the guy 
with a new digital camera would understand. Hey, just shoot 500 shots 
and sort it out in the computer. Not that I have anything against 
digital photography, it's a new mode and it has it's it's good points 
and bad points. However, I feel a little sorry for those that have never 
seen the image - appear on a ground glass of a 6x6, 6x9 or better yet a 
4x5 so they can see the endless possibilities that lie there in B&W.

Truman

Barrett Benton wrote:

>
> There's also a "digital" mindset in action, I feel, where
> expediency trumps any previous aesthetic in place, especially as
> photography becaomes absorbed into the casual "Hey, it's all
> media to me" mix of mass entertainment/diversion (won't get
> started on *that*, but let's just say I'm a fan of Neil Postman and
> Jerry Mander).

Truman Prevatt writes:

> And the time, labor, patients that goes in a 4x5 - I'm not sure the guy
> with a new digital camera would understand. Hey, just shoot 500 shots 
> and sort it out in the computer.

One of the reasons I don't zip through roll after roll of film when
shooting is not the cost of film ... it's the cost of sorting through
the results.  Going through 500 shots to find ten good ones is a lot
more time-consuming than going through 50 shots to find ten good ones,
whether they are shot digitally or on film.

Truman  -
 
I don't yet own a digital camera.  When I do get one (next couple of months), I hope to take the same approach that I take with the 6x9, 4x5, or 8x10.  I just want to do some different things than I have done with film.  I won't be taking the shoot 500 and sort it out later approach.
 
You're right about the joys of seeing a big image on a ground glass.  For me, the image on the ground glass provides the real inspiration.  For that reason, and several others that are associated only with the wet process, I'm glad to see that many institutions are still teaching photography with the wet process.  I do wonder if the digital age will provide the same sense of magic that came with learning the wet process.  And, what effect will that have on the creative processes in photography.  We can only wait an see.
 
Tom Baker
Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@...> wrote:
Barrett,

Notice how people shooting digital shot large numbers of images. They 
need 1 Gig flash memory cards or micro drives. I've never shot that much 
35 mm film (when I shoot 35 mm film) in at one time in my life.

And the time, labor, patients that goes in a 4x5 - I'm not sure the guy 
with a new digital camera would understand. Hey, just shoot 500 shots 
and sort it out in the computer. Not that I have anything against 
digital photography, it's a new mode and it has it's it's good points 
and bad points. However, I feel a little sorry for those that have never 
seen the image - appear on a ground glass of a 6x6, 6x9 or better yet a 
4x5 so they can see the endless possibilities that lie there in B&W.

Truman

Barrett Benton wrote:

>
> There's also a "digital" mindset in action, I feel, where
> expediency trumps any previous aesthetic in place, especially as
> photography becaomes absorbed into the casual "Hey, it's all
> media to me" mix of mass entertainment/diversion (won't get
> started on *that*, but let's just say I'm a fan of Neil Postman and
> Jerry Mander).




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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. 


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

Today, you can buy a digital camera, a book telling you how to use it 
and fire shots to your hearts content, and you will get some pretty good 
snap shots. I just wonder if this new generation of photographers ever 
heard of Edward Weston, much less read his day books. Most probably 
think Minor While is some strange key used in classical music.

Time will tell, but hopefully once they reach their creative potential 
firing away in automatic, some will explore deeper.

Regards
Truman

Tom Baker wrote:

> Truman  -
>
> I don't yet own a digital camera.  When I do get one (next couple of 
> months), I hope to take the same approach that I take with the 6x9, 
> 4x5, or 8x10.  I just want to do some different things than I have 
> done with film.  I won't be taking the shoot 500 and sort it out later 
> approach.
>
> You're right about the joys of seeing a big image on a ground glass.  
> For me, the image on the ground glass provides the real inspiration.  
> For that reason, and several others that are associated only with the 
> wet process, I'm glad to see that many institutions are still teaching 
> photography with the wet process.  I do wonder if the digital age will 
> provide the same sense of magic that came with learning the wet 
> process.  And, what effect will that have on the creative processes in 
> photography.  We can only wait an see.
>
> Tom Baker
>

Barrett Benton wrote:
> I can well remember someone asking me, about a decade ago, 
> "Why bother with black-and-white? The world's in color. We 
> have color film. What's the point?". 


I don't know how others answer that question, but here is certainly
one answer:

I make color pictures when I want to emphasize color and I make
black & white pictures when I want to emphasize form.

CJ


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

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> One of the reasons I don't zip through roll after roll of film when
> shooting is not the cost of film ... it's the cost of sorting through
> the results.  Going through 500 shots to find ten good ones is a lot
> more time-consuming than going through 50 shots to find ten good ones,
> whether they are shot digitally or on film.

Then again, sometimes we have to shoot 10 frames instead of just
1 to get the best "decisive moment" -- and which one of those 
frames is indeed the best "decisive moment" just isn't known
until after the fact, when we're review all 10 of our optional
selections.

CJ

Truman Prevatt writes:

> Time will tell, but hopefully once they reach their
> creative potential firing away in automatic, some will
> explore deeper.

Digital will not increase or decrease the number of serious
photographers in the world.  It will, however, greatly increase the
number of very casual amateurs taking pictures.  Anything that makes a
technology more accessible and easy to use will increase the number of
people using that technology.  "We do the rest" cameras did it once,
35mm cameras did it a bit more, Polaroids still more ... and now digital
cameras.  So the only real change is that the _percentage_ of serious
photographers will diminish--but their absolute numbers will not change
(or perhaps will very slightly increase).

I fully agree that culling is both necessary and time consuming.

I can remember Fred Picker telling a story about teaching a friend's
daughter to make photographs. He sent her out with a 4X5 field camera
and a couple of Polaroid packets and asked her to make the best shots
she could. Sort of pushes the idea of previsualization and shot
selection.

When I was shooting large format and could only carry about a dozen film
holders I was damn careful to select what I wanted carefully. I realize
that this isn't for everybody and that it would be tough to do the
Cartier-Bresson approach with a view camera but it does help train one's
eye.

With more than a little age I admit to now using a 35mm and digital
exclusively and have fallen into bad habits but I think my previous
existence has helped to pick a little more carefully when looking at a
scene to photograph.

Even with large format film it was still necessary to cull through the
negatives and discard those that weren't worth of spending the time in
the darkroom to make a fine print. 35mm and digital simply makes that
end of the business more time consuming. Again, a Picker aphorism was
never fall in love with a negative...

Roger

On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 16:59, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: 
> Truman Prevatt writes:
> 
> > And the time, labor, patients that goes in a 4x5 - I'm not sure the
> guy
> > with a new digital camera would understand. Hey, just shoot 500
> shots 
> > and sort it out in the computer.
> 
> One of the reasons I don't zip through roll after roll of film when
> shooting is not the cost of film ... it's the cost of sorting through
> the results.  Going through 500 shots to find ten good ones is a lot
> more time-consuming than going through 50 shots to find ten good ones,
> whether they are shot digitally or on film.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
> this same page.
> 
> 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.

Tom Baker wrote:

> I don't yet own a digital camera.  When I do get one (next couple of
months),
> I hope to take the same approach that I take with the 6x9, 4x5, or 8x10.
I just
> want to do some different things than I have done with film.  I won't be
taking
> the shoot 500 and sort it out later approach.

Then perhaps you might be missing out on one of the good advantages
of working with a medium where we can erase our imperfect
images rather than just having them be costly discards.

This is not to suggest the endorsement of a "motordrive
syndrome" but only to suggest that sometimes a burst
of ten quick images can better help us hit on that one
"decisive moment". And while this is certainly also
something we can do with film,  it is simply more
enouraging to do it when the the nine out of ten images
we later discard are simply erased digital files rather than
being a cost to us in terms of film and film processing.

So while I am all for well lit and well composed images,
I also find, at least for myself, that my use of a digital
camera has somewhat modified my shooting practices
from those times when I was using film.

*********

> I do wonder if the digital age will provide the same sense
> of magic that came with learning the wet process.

No, I don't imagine the "magic" of the digital age will
be the same as that which came with learning the
wet process. But I can well image the creativity might
well takes us to places we might not have ventured to in
earlier years.

I remember music I listened to back when  I was a teenager.
Some of it was good, some was great, and some as crap.
And likewise to the contemporary music I hear today --
some is good, some is great, and no doubt in the future
some of it will be looked back as just being crap.
Each generation, and indeed each decade brings with
it some new creativity (as well as some new crap).

The age of medium and large format camera gave us
some interesting image. And when 35mm became a more
popular format, we saw some interesting images from
this format which perhaps would have been harder or
even impossible to make with larger format cameras.
In like manner, digital photography will now have us
making images which we didn't much consider doing
when we were shooting film. And just like with music,
the new age of digital will reveal some good results,
some great ones, and some crap.

So no, I don't imagine the "magic" of the digital age will
be the same as that which came with learning the
wet process. But as I said, I can well image the creativity
of using digital cameras might well takes us to places we
might not have ventured to in earlier years.

CJ

C J Morgan writes:

> Then again, sometimes we have to shoot 10 frames instead of just
> 1 to get the best "decisive moment" ...

The photographer who coined the term typically only shot one.

C J Morgan writes:

> Then perhaps you might be missing out on one of the good advantages
> of working with a medium where we can erase our imperfect
> images rather than just having them be costly discards.

I think it is more productive to choose the images wisely to begin with;
then you don't have to worry about sorting through them or discarding
them or erasing them later on.

> This is not to suggest the endorsement of a "motordrive
> syndrome" but only to suggest that sometimes a burst
> of ten quick images can better help us hit on that one
> "decisive moment".

I have yet to come across an occasion to use the motor drive on my
camera.  The only time I've ever used it was by accident, when I
switched the camera inadvertently to continuous mode.  It sounds eerily
like a cash register when it blazes through $4 of film per second.

> The age of medium and large format camera gave us
> some interesting image.

Some people still use MF and LF cameras.  They aren't exactly museum
pieces yet.

agfa just canceled APX100 in 4x5 (ie. abandoned LF)... gotta wonder 
what's next.

mark

...

> > The age of medium and large format camera gave us
> > some interesting image.
> 
> Some people still use MF and LF cameras.  They aren't exactly museum
> pieces yet.

True.  As I said, I intend to do different things than I have done with film.
 
Shooting in burt mode, etc., is a special case.  All special cases have their use, for sure.  And, I use them all.  Being raised on film doesn't mean one's entire photographic life, these days especially, should be a mimic of the film approach.  Actually, quite the opposite.  I/we can build on what we have learned from film, while adding all of the good things that the new technologies bring.  That's my intent, anyway.
 
Tom Baker

C J Morgan <cjmorgan@...> wrote:

Tom Baker wrote:

> I don't yet own a digital camera.  When I do get one (next couple of
months),
> I hope to take the same approach that I take with the 6x9, 4x5, or 8x10.
I just
> want to do some different things than I have done with film.  I won't be
taking
> the shoot 500 and sort it out later approach.

Then perhaps you might be missing out on one of the good advantages
of working with a medium where we can erase our imperfect
images rather than just having them be costly discards.

This is not to suggest the endorsement of a "motordrive
syndrome" but only to suggest that sometimes a burst
of ten quick images can better help us hit on that one
"decisive moment". And while this is certainly also
something we can do with film,  it is simply more
enouraging to do it when the the nine out of ten images
we later discard are simply erased digital files rather than
being a cost to us in terms of film and film processing.

So while I am all for well lit and well composed images,
I also find, at least for myself, that my use of a digital
camera has somewhat modified my shooting practices
from those times when I was using film.

*********

> I do wonder if the digital age will provide the same sense
> of magic that came with learning the wet process.

No, I don't imagine the "magic" of the digital age will
be the same as that which came with learning the
wet process. But I can well image the creativity might
well takes us to places we might not have ventured to in
earlier years.

I remember music I listened to back when  I was a teenager.
Some of it was good, some was great, and some as crap.
And likewise to the contemporary music I hear today --
some is good, some is great, and no doubt in the future
some of it will be looked back as just being crap.
Each generation, and indeed each decade brings with
it some new creativity (as well as some new crap).

The age of medium and large format camera gave us
some interesting image. And when 35mm became a more
popular format, we saw some interesting images from
this format which perhaps would have been harder or
even impossible to make with larger format cameras.
In like manner, digital photography will now have us
making images which we didn't much consider doing
when we were shooting film. And just like with music,
the new age of digital will reveal some good results,
some great ones, and some crap.

So no, I don't imagine the "magic" of the digital age will
be the same as that which came with learning the
wet process. But as I said, I can well image the creativity
of using digital cameras might well takes us to places we
might not have ventured to in earlier years.

CJ


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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. 


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

The people I know who take photography seriously don't shoot 500 
digital images.  They may be more tempted to experiment more since it 
doesn't cost alot, but that is a good thing.  I for one find it very 
hard to experiment with a 4x5"... good to experiment with a digital 
and then if the image is promising enough to go back with the 
4x5" ...of course the digital image is often good enough:)

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt 
<tprevatt@m...> wrote:
> Barrett,
> 
> Notice how people shooting digital shot large numbers of images. 
They 
> need 1 Gig flash memory cards or micro drives. I've never shot that 
much 
> 35 mm film (when I shoot 35 mm film) in at one time in my life.
> 
> And the time, labor, patients that goes in a 4x5 - I'm not sure the 
guy 
> with a new digital camera would understand. Hey, just shoot 500 
shots 
> and sort it out in the computer. Not that I have anything against 
> digital photography, it's a new mode and it has it's it's good 
points 
> and bad points. However, I feel a little sorry for those that have 
never 
> seen the image - appear on a ground glass of a 6x6, 6x9 or better 
yet a 
> 4x5 so they can see the endless possibilities that lie there in B&W.
> 
> Truman
> 
> Barrett Benton wrote:
> 
> >
> > There's also a "digital" mindset in action, I feel, where
> > expediency trumps any previous aesthetic in place, especially as
> > photography becaomes absorbed into the casual "Hey, it's all
> > media to me" mix of mass entertainment/diversion (won't get
> > started on *that*, but let's just say I'm a fan of Neil Postman 
and
> > Jerry Mander).

What's next?  Anything that doesn't produce the board's/stockholders profit expectations.  I expect that you and I, as b&w people, don't contribute enough to meet those profit expectations. I would not be surprised to see the big film companies drop almost all b&w except the Porta type b&w's that can be process/printed using color equipment.  And, even that won't last much past the point where the film processors digitize everything before printing.  At that point, if you want b&w, just say so.  They'll hit the b&w button before the high speed inkjet (or whatever) printer prints your image.
 
Tom Baker

Mark Hahn <markhahn2000@...> wrote:
agfa just canceled APX100 in 4x5 (ie. abandoned LF)... gotta wonder 
what's next.

mark

...
> > The age of medium and large format camera gave us
> > some interesting image.
> 
> Some people still use MF and LF cameras.  They aren't exactly museum
> pieces yet.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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. 


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

You know, when I started studying photography I had my K1000 and 
endless bulk loads of Tri-X and probably shot as much as any new kid 
with a DSLR in art school now... I say it's great.  You learn by 
making mistakes and the more you shoot the more mistakes you make... 
now I'm older and really don't shoot that many photos... just 
concentrate on shooting them right... but when you are starting out...

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt 
<tprevatt@m...> wrote:
> Today, you can buy a digital camera, a book telling you how to use 
it 
> and fire shots to your hearts content, and you will get some pretty 
good 
> snap shots. I just wonder if this new generation of photographers 
ever 
> heard of Edward Weston, much less read his day books. Most probably 
> think Minor While is some strange key used in classical music.
> 
> Time will tell, but hopefully once they reach their creative 
potential 
> firing away in automatic, some will explore deeper.
> 
> Regards
> Truman
> 
> Tom Baker wrote:
> 
> > Truman  -
> >
> > I don't yet own a digital camera.  When I do get one (next couple 
of 
> > months), I hope to take the same approach that I take with the 
6x9, 
> > 4x5, or 8x10.  I just want to do some different things than I 
have 
> > done with film.  I won't be taking the shoot 500 and sort it out 
later 
> > approach.
> >
> > You're right about the joys of seeing a big image on a ground 
glass.  
> > For me, the image on the ground glass provides the real 
inspiration.  
> > For that reason, and several others that are associated only with 
the 
> > wet process, I'm glad to see that many institutions are still 
teaching 
> > photography with the wet process.  I do wonder if the digital age 
will 
> > provide the same sense of magic that came with learning the wet 
> > process.  And, what effect will that have on the creative 
processes in 

> > photography.  We can only wait an see.
> >
> > Tom Baker
> >

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "C J 
Morgan" <cjmorgan@r...> wrote:

> Then perhaps you might be missing out on one of the good 
>advantages of  working with a medium where we can erase our  
> images rather than just having them be costly discards.

Oh, dear...I think I'm about to throw another spaniel in the works.

This is the *other* aspect of digital which sort of makes my teeth 
itch: the idea, frequently encouraged, of "instant editing" where 
one can decide in the moment whether an image is worth 
keeping or not. Early PJs shooting spot news with digital 
frequently ran out of storage space well before running out of 
things to shoot, so they had the stark choice of wiping some 
images for the sake of further shooting, or just packing it in until 
they could offload and transmit what they had. (Ask an AP or 
Reuters stringer how many cards they have on hand; with their 
day rates, it can't be all that many).

I've been making a lot of enlarged digital contact sheets lately 
(one gigantic advantage of the digital darkroom, if you'll forgive 
the pun), and it ocurred to me that, had I been shooting digital, 
just how many of these images might've been 86'd in haste? 
There have been more than a few "reconsidered" frames that 
didn't get the grease-pencil treatment the first time around, but 
on second consideration became "new" keepers. Some frames, 
of course, will remain turkeys, but in the realm of 35mm, they 
don't take up much space, and sometimes, they serve to stoke 
my memory of events the day I shot that roll. This last thought 
just hit me as I typed this - even a bad shot can have intrinsic 
value!

Time to make some more contacts. :-)

- Barrett

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
<markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> agfa just canceled APX100 in 4x5 (ie. abandoned LF)... gotta 
wonder 
> what's next.
> 
> mark
> 
I just got an intresting bit of news from a local camera shop owner: 
as of Dec. 21 Kodak is going to drop 70% of their wet-film products; 
some through limiting film/paper package sizes, some by simply 
deleting slow selling items. My local lab tells me they no longer 
sell the digital version of Supra color paper (for use in 
thier 'lightjet' type machines). They're having to spend days and 
dollars readjusting their system...no minor thing considering that 
system is designed around the lower contrast digital version of the 
paper. And this, with no warning from Kodak!  And I just spent money 
on a 65mm lens for my Bronica GS-1! I wonder if anyone will ever 
make a digital back for it?

Steve Karafyllakis

so true!  I can't say how many times I have wasted entire evenings 
with a negative or digital images struggling to fix it when the real 
answer was that it wasn't really that good!

mark

...

> Again, a Picker aphorism was
> never fall in love with a negative...
> 
> Roger

Yeah, right... maybe when they were staged!

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:

> C J Morgan writes:
> 
> > Then again, sometimes we have to shoot 10 frames instead of just
> > 1 to get the best "decisive moment" ...
> 
> The photographer who coined the term typically only shot one.

Actually, if one looks at Kodak's product line-up, you'll find a *lot* 
of "wet" film product that doesn't even fit mainstream 
photography (some of which I thought they'd cut out of the 
product mix years ago!). It should be interesting how this all 
shapes up afterward, of course (but remember...b/w film sales 
are *up*, not down).

And, I think your Bronica investment is safe for the time being.

- Barrett

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:

> I just got an intresting bit of news from a local camera shop 
>owner: as of Dec. 21 Kodak is going to drop 70% of their 
>wet-film products; some through limiting film/paper package 
>sizes, some by simply deleting slow selling items. My local lab 
>tells me they no longer sell the digital version of Supra color 
>paper (for use in thier 'lightjet' type machines). They're having to 
>spend days and dollars readjusting their system...no minor 
>thing considering that system is designed around the lower 
>contrast digital version of the paper. And this, with no warning 
>from Kodak!  And I just spent money on a 65mm lens for my 
>Bronica GS-1! I wonder if anyone will ever make a digital back 
for it?
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis

Barrett Benton writes:

> There have been more than a few "reconsidered" frames that
> didn't get the grease-pencil treatment the first time around, but 
> on second consideration became "new" keepers.

I often don't decide whether to keep or toss an image until long after
I've shot it.  Even with a digital camera, I keep everything, and sort
it out later.  It's too easy to trash an excellent image through hasty
editing in the field.

Roger L Sopher wrote:
> Again, a Picker aphorism was never fall in love with a negative...

... particularly if it smokes, drinks and runs around
with other negatives.     

CJ

C J Morgan writes:
>> Then again, sometimes we have to shoot 10 frames instead of just
>> 1 to get the best "decisive moment" ...

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> The photographer who coined the term typically only shot one.

And we've learned a lot about the creative process since then.
Indeed, I imagine if he were around today with a digital camera,
he won't hesitiate to shoot off 10 frames to get one "best of
decisive moment" amongst the series of shots taken.... and likewise 
probably would have had a lot more "decisive moment" final images
in his portfolio case by the end his days.

CJ

Tom Baker wrote:
> Shooting in burt mode, etc., is a special case.  All special 
> cases have their use, for sure.  And, I use them all.  Being 
> raised on film doesn't mean one's entire photographic life, 
> these days especially, should be a mimic of the film approach.  
> Actually, quite the opposite.  I/we can build on what we have 
> learned from film, while adding all of the good things that 
> the new technologies bring.  That's my intent, anyway.

And a good approach that is. 

I know for myself, for example, when I started shooting 
digital, I didn't at  all abandon all I'd learned from my year 
of shooting film. As wonderful as the new technology is, 
(and gosh it's fun), I still find that I nevertheless need to
pay attention to things like lighting and composition if
I'm going to come home with some images I'm happy with.

And I would certainly be remiss if I didn't admit that my
earlier years of shooting with medium or large format
cameras was very helpful in getting me to slow down
and pay more careful attention to even those images
I make today (let's face it, when you use a large format
camera, like it or not, you learn to slow down and
pay attention to each composition you make).

So certainly any good habits I picked up from earlier
days of working with film cameras mostly still gets
translated into the way I shoot with a digital camera
today.

So when you talk ab about how we can build on what
we have learned from film, while adding all of the
good things the new technologies bring... well, that
sounds about right. Or at the very least, it's congruent
to what I've found with my own experience.

My guess is you're going to love it when you start
shooting with digital.

I might be wrong. But that's my guess.

CJ

C J Morgan writes:

> And we've learned a lot about the creative process since then.

Have we?  Today's photos don't look any better, except from a strictly
technical standpoint.

> Indeed, I imagine if he were around today with a digital camera,
> he won't hesitiate to shoot off 10 frames to get one "best of
> decisive moment" amongst the series of shots taken.... and likewise 
> probably would have had a lot more "decisive moment" final images
> in his portfolio case by the end his days.

Well, Henri Cartier-Bresson is not dead, so you might want to send him a
digital camera and see what he thinks.  Perhaps he has always dreamed of
shooting eight frames a second, instead of one hour per frame.

Barrett Benton wrote:
> it ocurred to me that, had I been shooting digital, 
> just how many of these images might've been 86'd in haste? 
> There have been more than a few "reconsidered" frames that 
> didn't get the grease-pencil treatment the first time around, but 
> on second consideration became "new" keepers.

I'm not sure how others go about this, but for my own part,
I don't usually edit while I'm out in the field shooting. Even
for those images where I might shoot a burst of 10 frames
with the idea in my head that I'm just looking for 1 
"decisive moment" images, I'll wait until I'm later home
and sitting in front of my computer screen to decide which
one is the keeper and which ones just get dumped. So I
don't want to edit too, too prematurely.

And it also happens, from time to time, where I might see
a series of 10 images in a row which I've shot, thinking
I'm only looking for 1 "decisive moment" image, but then
in reviewing the work back at home, I see that I actually like
four or five of the images, and that while one of them is
a good "decisive moment", indeed four or five of them
together make a very nice little series.

And this has happened to me more than just one time.
And so while I try to be somewhat ruthless about my 
editing when I get home, at the same time I also try to
keep somewhat of an open mind to whatever "nice 
surprises" show up which I didn't initially anticipate
during the actual shooting earlier.

But beyond that, I try to be somewhat ruthless in my editing...
not altogether uncommon if 30-50% of what I shot during
a given day just gets dumped immediately, to my mind
not even worth keeping in the archives for some future
time when I might want to look back on what I shot.

Then again, I kept everything I shot for the first 20 years.
I mean everything. And so nowadays I just think to myself: 
"Seriously CJ, you're running out of closet space; you really
have to get a bit more ruthless about your editing for
anything further you shoot these days."

So yeah, perhaps I'm losing an image here and there which
even though it's a turkey still has some sort of intrinsic
value (sentimental or otherwise). But I have to weigh that
against the fact that... well... I'm already near being out of 
closet space.  :-)

CJ

To whom it may concern,

This thread seems to be taking up an inordinate amount of bandwidth, does
not seem to be progressing any farther than it has in previous
reincarnations and is getting acrimonious as well.

Techniques for converting color files or film to digital B&W prints are of
valid interest to the group since that is a path many people take regardless
of how some may view this process. However, it should be obvious to all
involved that these tired old arguments of B&W vs. color and digital vs.
film do not change anyone's opinion.

Please wrap this one up and let's move on to something else.

Martin Wesley

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:

> Well, Henri Cartier-Bresson is not dead, so you might want to 
>send him a digital camera and see what he thinks.  Perhaps he 
>has always dreamed of shooting eight frames a second, 
>instead of one hour per frame.

Of course, I doubt any of us could persuade him to pick up a 
camera at all - he's definitely of a "been there, done that, finished 
with it" mindset these days. Also, in his latter days of shooting he 
was often using a high-end p&s camera with both motorized film 
advance/rewind, so he wasn't totally averse to certain technical 
advencements.

But the argument about what he *might* have done with a digital 
camera is awfully akin to stuff like "Imagine if Mozart had a 
Kurzweil or Synclavier!" Alas, he didn't, but he also didn't spend 
most of his creative energy chasing his own tail, like a certain 
prominent minimalist I could name. (Terry Riley fans, put your 
axes down...I wasn't referring to him).  HCB made images I never 
tire of viewing. I'd say his brain and thumb were in fine sync with 
each other, and moving quite fast enough.

- Barrett

mark spake thus:

> Message: 17
> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:39:20 -0000
> From: "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@...>
> Subject: Re: B&W vs. Color
> 
> The people I know who take photography seriously don't shoot 500
> digital images.  They may be more tempted to experiment more since it
> doesn't cost alot, but that is a good thing.  I for one find it very
> hard to experiment with a 4x5"... good to experiment with a digital
> and then if the image is promising enough to go back with the
> 4x5" ...of course the digital image is often good enough:)

Exactly! I often 'pre-shoot' with a small digital and then haul out the
Linhof. 

Jon

Hi Tom,

Yep, sad but true. My method is this: buy and shoot as much of those
materials as possible. Keep the demand up and the product will be made.

Jon

> What's next?  Anything that doesn't produce the board's/stockholders profit
> expectations.  I expect that you and I, as b&w people, don't contribute enough
> to meet those profit expectations. I would not be surprised to see the big
> film companies drop almost all b&w except the Porta type b&w's that can be
> process/printed using color equipment.  And, even that won't last much past
> the point where the film processors digitize everything before printing.  At
> that point, if you want b&w, just say so.  They'll hit the b&w button before
> the high speed inkjet (or whatever) printer prints your image.
> 
> Tom Baker
> 
> Mark Hahn <markhahn2000@...> wrote:
> agfa just canceled APX100 in 4x5 (ie. abandoned LF)... gotta wonder
> what's next.
> 
> mark
> 
> ...
>>> The age of medium and large format camera gave us
>>> some interesting image.
>> 
>> Some people still use MF and LF cameras.  They aren't exactly museum
>> pieces yet.

Martin  -
 
You're right.  But, I'm new enough that I haven't heard this stuff on here.  I'm sure others are in the same situation.  The real problem is that 90% of it isn't worth reading.  But, the other 10% is of real value, at least to some.
 
Tom Baker

Martin Wesley <mwesley250@...> wrote:
To whom it may concern,

This thread seems to be taking up an inordinate amount of bandwidth, does
not seem to be progressing any farther than it has in previous
reincarnations and is getting acrimonious as well.

Techniques for converting color files or film to digital B&W prints are of
valid interest to the group since that is a path many people take regardless
of how some may view this process. However, it should be obvious to all
involved that these tired old arguments of B&W vs. color and digital vs.
film do not change anyone's opinion.

Please wrap this one up and let's move on to something else.

Martin Wesley


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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. 


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

CJ Morgan wrote:
> And we've learned a lot about the creative process since then.

Anthony G. Atkielski 
> Have we?  

Sure. For example, I have a better chance of getting a best of
"decisive moment" if I shoot my ten frames in a row, reviewing
and editing later, than I do if I try to figure out which one of 
those individual moments is the best "decisive moment" while
I'm actually shooting. Or at least that's been my experience.

********

> Well, Henri Cartier-Bresson is not dead, so you might want to 
> send him a digital camera and see what he thinks.  

If he's still alive, then he's 95, and my guess is that he's not much
out gallivanting any more these days. I could be wrong, but 
nevertheless that's my guess.

CJ

* -----Original Message-----
* From: Tom Baker [mailto:tbaker1328@...] 
* Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 9:56 PM
* To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
* Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From Your Moderator was RE: B&W vs. Color
* 
* 
* Martin  -
*  
* You're right.  But, I'm new enough that I haven't heard this 
* stuff on here.  I'm sure others are in the same situation.  
* The real problem is that 90% of it isn't worth reading.  But, 
* the other 10% is of real value, at least to some.
*  
Tom,

Well I am glad to hear someone is getting something out of it! Don't take
any of it too seriously though. All that matters in the end is how good is
the print and I have seen really great work done with color and B&W as the
starting points. 

Martin

The print is what it's about.  There is value in the opinions of the contributors that are objective, and report the strong and weak points of particular tools/technique.  I guess that's the real aim of this forum anyway.
 
Tom Baker

Martin Wesley <mwesley250@...> wrote:


* -----Original Message-----
* From: Tom Baker [mailto:tbaker1328@...] 
* Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 9:56 PM
* To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
* Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From Your Moderator was RE: B&W vs. Color
* 
* 
* Martin  -
*  
* You're right.  But, I'm new enough that I haven't heard this 
* stuff on here.  I'm sure others are in the same situation.  
* The real problem is that 90% of it isn't worth reading.  But, 
* the other 10% is of real value, at least to some.
*  
Tom,

Well I am glad to hear someone is getting something out of it! Don't take
any of it too seriously though. All that matters in the end is how good is
the print and I have seen really great work done with color and B&W as the
starting points. 

Martin  


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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. 


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

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> I think it is more productive to choose the images wisely to begin with;
> then you don't have to worry about sorting through them or discarding
> them or erasing them later on.

Certainly that sounds wonderful in theory.

But in practice, we don't always know when the best
"decisive moment" is going to be. We might be able
to narrow it down to within a few second just before
we start shooting. But we can't always predict which
very specific moment is going to be the absolute best.

If, for example, I have about a 10 second window
of opportunity to get an image or series of frames
shot off, and if I just decide to shoot only one frame
during that time, if the best "decisive moment" comes
at the 2 second mark and I miss it, then it's gone. 

Likewise, if I shoot what I think is the best "decisive 
moment" at the 3 second mark and it turns out a better
decisive moment (which effectively really is the
best "decisive moment") comes at the 9 second mark,
then once again I'm going to lose the very best shot
I might have had just because I limited myself to
taking only one shot.

Rather than this, I would rather shoot an image for
each one of those 10 seconds, and then later compare
the images one to the other, deciding only at that
point which one of those shots was the best "decisive
moment." 

Does that mean more time in editing process later
on because I took 10 shots instead of just 1? Yes,
absolutely -- that approach does indeed add to
my editing time. 

But it is, at least from where I sit, time well spent if 
doing this affords me a better choice of finished result 
than I otherwise would have had if I'd only made 
one shot and missed the best "decisive moment." 

So while I appreciate the theory of "more productive to 
choose the images wisely to begin with" in the most
practical of terms, we don't alway know which of
our specific moment is going to be the best "decisive
moment". And so while we may cut down on our
editing time by not too much suffering from a full
day of exhibiting motordrive syndrome, nevertheless
there are just some moments, some brief windows
of opportunity, where it is better to shoot first and
edit later rather than too much pinning our hopes
on just one frame which may or may not have been
the best "decisive moment."

Or at least that's been my experience.

CJ

Tom Baker said: 
> Subject: Re: From Your Moderator was RE: B&W vs. Color
> 
> Martin  -
> 
> You're right.  But, I'm new enough that I haven't heard this stuff on here.

Check the archives--you will discover a lot.

> I'm sure others are in the same situation.  The real problem is that 90% of it
> isn't worth reading.  But, the other 10% is of real value, at least to some.

Yeah, and the above reference to the archive should be taken with a grain of
salt.

The real test? See what comes out of  the printer.

Jon

on 11/28/03 9:47 PM, Martin Wesley at mwesley250@... wrote:

> To whom it may concern,
> 
> This thread seems to be taking up an inordinate amount of bandwidth, does
> not seem to be progressing any farther than it has in previous
> reincarnations and is getting acrimonious as well.
> 

Martin, FWIW, Anthony Atkielski has been kicked off several lists because of
this sort of behavior... an option to consider ...

Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com

Truman,

With my D100 I can now do what we're always advised to do - bracket
exposures. I could never afford to 'waste' film on bracketing, but now
taking three exposures to be sure that one is right is no problem. Just
delete the duds at the end of the day. And I take more 'iffy' pictures that
might or might not come out, than I would have with film.

I only get 100 raw images on a 1GB card, so with bracketing that is only 33
pictures = 1 film. With images from a Canon 1Ds or Koday 14n you only get
about 27 images on a 1 GB card - 9 with bracketing!! If you save tiffs, you
get far less. Only with small jpegs do you get hundreds or thousands - if
you can put up with the quality loss.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
>
> Notice how people shooting digital shot large numbers of images. They
> need 1 Gig flash memory cards or micro drives. I've never shot that much
> 35 mm film (when I shoot 35 mm film) in at one time in my life.

Now that's ALWAYS a brilliant move.. Great way to make friends and 
influence moderators.. Post an OFFLIST note aform the moderator AND your 
response to him/her ONLIST...

EGADS man, you've nearly ensured the level of diatribe will ratchet up 
now instead of dropping!




 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

Bob Frost wrote:

>Truman,
>
>With my D100 I can now do what we're always advised to do - bracket
>exposures. I could never afford to 'waste' film on bracketing,
>
I never understood that perspective... FILM is/was absolutely the 
cheapest component of the entire process..  Every prof and every editor 
I ever knew said essentially the same thing "film is cheap - shoot MORE 
not less"..

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugen Smith, and photographers that are associated 
with shooting this moment didn't have the luxury of the digital camera 
or unlimited film. During the second world war, when these men were 
photographing the resistance movement or from the front, they had to 
preserve their film. The worst thing was to run out and in war time 
there are no assurances that you can just go down to the local drug 
store and get more.

Even today the photojournalist that shoots conflicts is under similar 
constraints. True they can set up a satellite dish and broadcast the 
digital images back, but at times it is down right dangerous to do so. 
Then there is the issue of not so much film but battery life and getting 
power to recharge.

But also people like Cartier-Bresson and Smith feel the moment. They 
spend their time looking at the subject while it is unfolding and have 
the ability to fire the shutter at the right moment. That's why they are 
who they are and the average hack war photographer has long been forgotten.

If you remember Cartier-Bresson felt that the image has to be developed 
in the "mind's-eye" first and composition was the most important thing 
about the image. That's why he printed (most) of his images without 
cropping. The full frame 35 mm shot became his trademark. In fact his 
followers would file out the negative carrier to prove they had not 
cropped. To these men the snapping of the shutter was the last part of 
selection of a photograph - not the first.

I'm sure they took more than one shot of many subjects as the moment 
unfolded, however, that is different than rapid fire shooting and 
letting the dust settle hoping to get a good shot.

Of course both were not at all shy about manipulations in the darkroom.

The tools today are different - whether they produce better images or 
better photographers is still an open question. One that won't be 
answered for a long time.

Truman

C J Morgan wrote:

> C J Morgan writes:
> >> Then again, sometimes we have to shoot 10 frames instead of just
> >> 1 to get the best "decisive moment" ...
>
> Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> > The photographer who coined the term typically only shot one.
>
> And we've learned a lot about the creative process since then.
> Indeed, I imagine if he were around today with a digital camera,
> he won't hesitiate to shoot off 10 frames to get one "best of
> decisive moment" amongst the series of shots taken.... and likewise
> probably would have had a lot more "decisive moment" final images
> in his portfolio case by the end his days.
>
> CJ
>

In one course I took, the first day we were handed a TLR medium format 
camera. After we calibrated the exposue quirks of the camera we were 
allowed only one roll of 120 film for each assignment. We had to bring 
the film it, process it in class and make all the prints in class. On 
some of the first assignments several people got nothing - blew their 
film. But the end of the class we all were shooting much better 
photographs since all the work was done prior to pushing the shutter 
release. That was probably one of the most benefical photography classes 
I've taken.

Truman

C J Morgan wrote:

>
> So certainly any good habits I picked up from earlier
> days of working with film cameras mostly still gets
> translated into the way I shoot with a digital camera
> today.
>
> So when you talk ab about how we can build on what
> we have learned from film, while adding all of the
> good things the new technologies bring... well, that
> sounds about right. Or at the very least, it's congruent
> to what I've found with my own experience.
>

NPR had an interview with him not long ago. He's back to drawing and 
painting. That was his background prior to becoming a photographer and 
had a lot to do with how he approached photography. In the interview he 
was asked "how he approached a shot." He said he stalked it like a 
hunter would his game. When the moment came he took the shot.

Truman

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

> C J Morgan writes:
>
> > And we've learned a lot about the creative process since then.
>
> Have we?  Today's photos don't look any better, except from a strictly
> technical standpoint.
>
> > Indeed, I imagine if he were around today with a digital camera,
> > he won't hesitiate to shoot off 10 frames to get one "best of
> > decisive moment" amongst the series of shots taken.... and likewise
> > probably would have had a lot more "decisive moment" final images
> > in his portfolio case by the end his days.
>
> Well, Henri Cartier-Bresson is not dead, so you might want to send him a
> digital camera and see what he thinks.  Perhaps he has always dreamed of
> shooting eight frames a second, instead of one hour per frame.
>
>

C J Morgan writes:

> But in practice, we don't always know when the best
> "decisive moment" is going to be. We might be able
> to narrow it down to within a few second just before
> we start shooting. But we can't always predict which
> very specific moment is going to be the absolute best.

Except for the most rapidly animated scenes, I can't see a use for
things like motor drives.  I'm sure it has its application in sports,
but beyond that, it's hard to see the utility.  Perhaps for some types
of wildlife photography or something.

The fastest type of photography I've done is fashion photography, and
even in that case, I've never found a use for motor drive.  As long as
you don't have too much shutter lag and you know what you are shooting
well enough to anticipate a bit, shooting single frames at a time seems
to provide great results.

And, as I've pointed out, HCB, who coined the term of the decisive
moment, doesn't use rapid-fire motor drives.  And while he is talented,
he is not unique.  A great many photographers manage to get excellent
photos without shooting hundreds or thousands of them at a time.  Even
sports photographers often claim that it's not a matter of shooting lots
of frames, but of simply knowing when to press the shutter for that one
good frame (and that seems plausible to me, although I don't do sports
photography and cannot comment from personal experience).

I suppose for those who don't find sorting images to be as tedious as I
do, shooting more of them may be an option.  On occasions when I've
tried this, however, looking at a dozen nearly-identical versions of the
same image has rapidly tired me.  I do occasionally shoot the same scene
in several different ways, but not with a motor-drive whirring away, and
always with substantially different viewpoints, composition, etc., so
that the different images really are quite different on the light table.

on 11/29/03 5:33 AM, Editor P.O.V. Image Service at editor@...
wrote:

> Now that's ALWAYS a brilliant move.. Great way to make friends and
> influence moderators.. Post an OFFLIST note aform the moderator AND your
> response to him/her ONLIST...
> 
> EGADS man, you've nearly ensured the level of diatribe will ratchet up
> now instead of dropping!
> 
> 

Yup, my bad.  Apologies to all.

Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com

Just to clarify - on 1Ds you shoot more than 80 RAW images (they take 
anywhere from 9 to 10.5 MB) - it was 80 with the Fuji S2.
Jack

Bob Frost wrote:

> Truman,
>
> With my D100 I can now do what we're always advised to do - bracket
> exposures. I could never afford to 'waste' film on bracketing, but now
> taking three exposures to be sure that one is right is no problem. Just
> delete the duds at the end of the day. And I take more 'iffy' pictures 
> that
> might or might not come out, than I would have with film.
>
> I only get 100 raw images on a 1GB card, so with bracketing that is 
> only 33
> pictures = 1 film. With images from a Canon 1Ds or Koday 14n you only get
> about 27 images on a 1 GB card - 9 with bracketing!! If you save 
> tiffs, you
> get far less. Only with small jpegs do you get hundreds or thousands - if
> you can put up with the quality loss.
>
> Bob Frost.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
> >
> > Notice how people shooting digital shot large numbers of images. They
> > need 1 Gig flash memory cards or micro drives. I've never shot that much
> > 35 mm film (when I shoot 35 mm film) in at one time in my life.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
> 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
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> 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 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.


-- 

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle




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

Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:
> I never understood that perspective... FILM is/was absolutely the 
> cheapest component of the entire process..  Every prof and every editor 
> I ever knew said essentially the same thing "film is cheap - shoot MORE 
> not less"..

That works fine when someone else is picking up the time for our
extra film and film processing costs. But when we're shooting for
ourselves, it might be an altogether different story.

On my last holiday, for example, if I wasn't shooting digital
but instead shooting film, and if I shot the same amount of
frame, the total cost of just film and film processing would
have come to over $2000. And if I made a habit of doing 
that when I was shooting film, well, the bank would have
soon been calling because I was missing mortgage payments.

So while "film is cheap", if you enough shooting and you're
picking up the tab yourself, those costs can soon add up to
a serious chunk of change.

Or so my wife has pointed out.  :-)

CJ

C J Morgan writes:

> On my last holiday, for example, if I wasn't shooting digital
> but instead shooting film, and if I shot the same amount of
> frame, the total cost of just film and film processing would
> have come to over $2000.

But would you have shot the same number of frames?  And how many keepers
would you have had, in each case?

I find that digital encourages one to shoot far more images (at least
during the honeymoon period), but the number of keepers doesn't seem to
improve. I shoot vast numbers of digital photos for my tiny daily
journal on my Web site, but the number of good shots is no greater than
what I would have obtained with film. (The only reason I shoot digitally
at all for these is that the images will be used at very small sizes and
must be ready within a few hours, and this favors digital capture.)

> And if I made a habit of doing that when I was shooting
> film, well, the bank would have soon been calling because
> I was missing mortgage payments.

You seem to be saying that just shooting a lot more images is a good
thing.  After shooting both film and digital, I have not found that to
be true.  Similarly, the number of keepers I obtain with 35mm film isn't
substantially greater than the number I obtain with MF film, even though
I shoot a lot more frames on 35mm.

Dang!  By my estimate that's about 6000 photos!  Hope you were 
traveling alone... 'cuz it's hard to imagine that you were actually 
able to do anyting else...

mark

...
> > On my last holiday, for example, if I wasn't shooting digital
> > but instead shooting film, and if I shot the same amount of
> > frame, the total cost of just film and film processing would
> > have come to over $2000.
...

Mark Hahn writes:

> Dang!  By my estimate that's about 6000 photos!  Hope you were 
> traveling alone... 'cuz it's hard to imagine that you were actually 
> able to do anyting else...

Hmm ... $2000 would pay for film and development of about 4000 shots in
my case, in the most expensive scenario (Provia 100F). That's about 7.5
rolls a day at 36 exposures each on a two-week trip, or roughly the
number I go through during 8-12 hours of event photography. If it takes
two minutes to decide what to do with each photo, that's over three
weeks of full-time (8 hours a day, 40-hour weeks) photo sorting just to
pick which ones to keep. For the smallest digital files, that's 7 CD-Rs
of archiving; for film shots, that would be about 62 CDs (a week of
non-stop CD burning at the very least).

None of this even addresses the cost of prints (which is the same for
both digital and film).

No matter how you look at it, that's a tremendous number of photos to
take.

As implied above, I shoot the most when I'm being paid for it.  During
an 8-12 hour shift, I'll go through about 7-8 rolls of 36 exposures.
That's about $150 of film and processing, depending on where I go, but
it's only necessary to sell a few to recover the cost.  Under just about
all other circumstances, I shoot far less.  Indeed, even for paying
jobs, I shoot a lot less if I can--not to save film, but just because
the sorting of the finished photos is so time-consuming.  You have to
look at each photo and decide what to do with it; if you decide to keep
it, it usually has to be adjusted, too, and then it must be archived and
recorded.  The only way to avoid that is to throw a lot of photos
away--and if you're throwing a lot away, why are you shooting it?

Our recent trip to Europe 3 weeks long. The wife and I shot 82 rolls 
of film Approx 35 rolls of Provia 30 rolls of Superia the balance 
being XP-2 and 1/2 frame. Developing at the local Pro lab hit 
$1100.00 with a nice discount. I have 5 full 140ct carousels she 
sorted down to 3 large Parker albums and I have a couple of 4X6 flip 
books for the B&W prints.

We saw and did a whole bunch of stuff that didn't invlove our cameras 
BUT we sure enjoy having the photos now that we are home.

Mark W.

I had a similar experience this summer, but with digital.  I took a trip 
through Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and Colorado (in 5 days - if it's 
Thursday it must be . . .) and came home with 500+ digital images.  Many of 
these are just out the car window driving across the vast prairies (it has 
been 30+ years since I've been out there, and not much seems to have 
changed.)  Most of these images will never be printed, many have windshield 
reflections and bug splatters in view, but I can browse through a slide 
show on my computer (or on the PDA I just got) and remember what it was 
like.  I never would have taken many of those shots on film, and if I had 
taken film and been willing to pay for processing, it is most unlikely I 
would ever get around to looking at them again.  (I have trays full of 
slides, none of which have been viewed in 20 years, largely because of the 
nuisance of setting up projector and screen.)

I did get some very nice images in Santa Fe, Taos and Chama, NM, as well as 
along the narrow gauge railroad from Chama into Colorado.  I will probably 
print 75-100 of the images in 8x10 size or so, and bind them into a book 
that I can flip through at leisure.  Or maybe I'll print them at 5x7 in 
color, and only print a few of the best ones larger in black and 
white.  With digital capture I have all of these options at practically no 
capture cost after buying the camera and lenses, and paying for the paper 
and ink to make the contact sheets.  If I were still shooting film I know I 
just wouldn't have all of these choices, as I almost never shot color film 
(probably 20 total color rolls in 30+ years, compared to 200+ rolls of B&W 
a year) and would not have spent the film to capture random views of the 
Texas panhandle at 75 miles an hour in black and white.

So maybe I did shoot "too many" digital images on that trip.  But I flushed 
the unfocused, blurred and duplicate ones (I took about 700 shots overall,) 
I can look at all of the rest conveniently, and do something special with 
the good ones, all as I decide after the fact.  This flexibility at very 
little marginal cost is what caused me to not take a film image once I got 
a good digital SLR in 2002, and to sell my dozen or so film cameras this 
past summer.  (I did keep an Olympus Stylus Zoom P&S just in case, but I 
have not used it in two years, and I suspect it will never be used 
again.)  So on the whole, I'm delighted with the possibilities that digital 
capture offers.

Cheers,
Kip

At 11/29/2003 08:34 PM +0000, you wrote:

>Our recent trip to Europe 3 weeks long. The wife and I shot 82 rolls
>of film Approx 35 rolls of Provia 30 rolls of Superia the balance
>being XP-2 and 1/2 frame. Developing at the local Pro lab hit
>$1100.00 with a nice discount. I have 5 full 140ct carousels she
>sorted down to 3 large Parker albums and I have a couple of 4X6 flip
>books for the B&W prints.
>
>We saw and did a whole bunch of stuff that didn't invlove our cameras
>BUT we sure enjoy having the photos now that we are home.
>
>Mark W.

As I said, "Dang, that's a lot of photos!"  :)

My wife and I spent a whole year in Europe and I doubt we came home 
with much more than 500 shots on film... but most of them were good;)

Everyone does things differently...

We did end up buying some very good photo books to supliment our own 
shots... seems like you are at most of the sites that you really want 
to photograph at precisely the wrong time... and going back for a 
second chance means not *doing* something else.

When my kids have grown and are gone, maybe I'll get to do more 
travel where the point *is* to take photos...

mark

...
> Thursday it must be . . .) and came home with 500+ digital images.  
...
> So maybe I did shoot "too many" digital images on that trip.  But I 
flushed 
> the unfocused, blurred and duplicate ones (I took about 700 shots 
overall,) 
>
...
> >Our recent trip to Europe 3 weeks long. The wife and I shot 82 
rolls
> >of film Approx 35 rolls of Provia 30 rolls of Superia the balance
> >being XP-2 and 1/2 frame. 
...

C J Morgan writes:
>> On my last holiday, for example, if I wasn't shooting digital
>> but instead shooting film, and if I shot the same amount of
>> frame, the total cost of just film and film processing would
>> have come to over $2000.

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> But would you have shot the same number of frames?

Well, if past experience is anything to go on, I have no doubt
that if I were shooting film instead of digital on my last holiday,
the number of shots I made would have been substantially less,
800 shots instead of 6000. And that would have been because
in the back of my mind, I would always be thinking that each
time I pressed the shutter release, I could hear a little cash
register going off. 

And so with that in mind, my shooting would have been much 
more conservative. As I said, just the cost of film and film
processing would have slowed me down (unless I quickly
wanted to go into the poor house).

********  

> And how many keepers would you have had, in each case?

In each case, on average, I perhaps say that I came home
with one in fifty shots that I was happy with. 

Oh sure, I'd perhaps say there was one in five that I'd regard
as a "keeper". So if I took 800 shots (like when I was shooting
with film) I'd regard about 160 of those as "keepers. And if
I shoot 6000 (like when I was shooting with digital) then I'd
roughly regard about 1200 of those as "keepers".

But if we're talking about images I'd be happy with, then in
each case that ratio would otherwise become 1:50.

So when I was shooting film and came home with 800 frames
shot, that one in 50 means that I came home with perhaps
16 shots that I was happy with.

So now if I go on a two week holiday and shoot 6000 frames
and still find myself happy with one in 50 shots that I make,
then I'm coming home with 120 shots that I'm satisfied with.
And that to me is a heck of a lot better then when I was
just coming home 16 shots I was happy with.

So shooting digital has not made the number of keepers
or images I'm happy with go up by any percentage. Whether
I'm shooting film or digital, I still come home keeping and
wanting to print 20% of the images I shot (i.e. one out
of every 5). And in terms of what I'm happy with, I'm finding
my ratio is still one in fifty, regardless of whether I'm
shooting film or digital. 

But because there's no more film or film processing costs
to consider, I find that I'm being more gung-ho when
I'm shooting on holidays. And so, as I said, instead of
coming home with 800 frames shot, I'm coming home
with 6000 frames shot. But in as much as I'm happy
with one in fifty in either case, the bottom line is that
when I shoot film, I come home with 16 images I'm
happy with and when I shoot digital, I come home
with 120 images I'm happy with. 

So absolutely, at least for me, I find not dealing with
film and film processing costs are very much having
me shoot more and come home with more "keepers."

CJ



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

Mark Hahn wrote:
> Dang!  By my estimate that's about 6000 photos! 

Your calculation is about right. 

For our two weeks of holiday this year to Italy (mostly 
Tuscany and a couple of days in Venice), I perhaps shot 
a total of about 6000 frames. 

And I perhaps chucked about  1/3 of those before even 
backing  the rest of them up to CD.  So I came home with 
about  4000 frames. 

And in reviewing those, I perhaps regarded about 1200 
as "keepers" (i.e. worth making 4x6 prints and putting into
keepsake albums). 

And then of that, there was about 120 images which I was 
happy with (or happy enough with). 

About half of those (about 60) from that trip are here:

http://www.pbase.com/cjmorgan/italy_2003&page=all


And then of that, perhaps a final 15 of those will eventually get 
enlarged and wind up being framed and on the livingroom 
wall. 

So it takes a bit of time to distill it down. But yeah, you're
estimating is about right -- over those two weeks in Tuscany
& Venice, that camera went off about 6000 times.

***********

> Hope you were  traveling alone... 'cuz it's hard to imagine that 
> you were actually able to do anyting else...

It was myself and my wife. And some of it we did by car and
some if it we did by train. And more walking in two weeks than
I perhaps do in the whole rest of the year combined. LOL.

But we found time in there to see a couple of museums, and
a few churchs, and a day at a beach, and an afternoon taking
a tour in some caves, and trying a number of different restaurants
here and there, etc. etc.

But for me at least, I find I become much more mentally 
involved in any holiday I take if I have my camera with me --
I just find myself paying much more attention to what's most
immediately in front of me... if for no other reason than the
fact that this is the stuff which I'm going to be using to
construct or compose my pictures. So the more I shoot,
the more attentive I am on holidays. And perhaps that's
a good thing so that all the expense it took to get and
be there is well being utilized.

But that's me and what I personally find most enjoyable
from travel and holiday time -- I enjoy it most when I
get to make images.

CJ


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

C J Morgan writes:

> About half of those (about 60) from that trip are here:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/cjmorgan/italy_2003&page=all

Almost every photo has been deliberately underexposed and heavily
Photoshopped.  How come?

"Anthony G. Atkielski"  wrote:

> > http://www.pbase.com/cjmorgan/italy_2003&page=all
> 
> Almost every photo has been deliberately underexposed and heavily
> Photoshopped.  How come?

You got to be kidding...right? Exposure seems right on to me. You need to calibrate 
your monitor and/or get glasses.

Nice job CJ - beautiful images!

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> Almost every photo has been deliberately 
> underexposed and heavily Photoshopped.  
> How come?

'Cause they were my holidays... so I got to make
the images the way I wanted.
CJ

John Vitollo wrote:
> Nice job CJ - beautiful images!

Thank-you John.
CJ

John Vitollo writes:

> You got to be kidding...right?

No.

> Exposure seems right on to me.

The EXIF data for virtually every photo shows deliberate underexposure
of up to 2 stops.  Most photos have been retouched to lighten or darken
certain areas as well.  At first I thought it was vignetting, but that
makes no sense with a less than full-frame sensor, and it's not
symmetrical.  I thought maybe there is something unusual about the
camera that requires adjustment of photos.

C J Morgan writes:

> 'Cause they were my holidays... so I got to make
> the images the way I wanted.

Does the D60 standard matrix metering routinely overexpose?  Most matrix
metering seems to be pretty accurate.

I usually shoot slides, so I don't normally override the matrix
metering--in scenes with lots of contrast, something is usually
sacrificed no matter what you do.  With black and white film, there's a
lot more headroom, and then you can adjust exposure, but you don't
usually have to.  Portra 400BW is very tolerant in this respect for a
chromogenic film, and of course the conventional B&W films leave plenty
of margin.

Nice pictures.  Makes me want to return for another long stay.
 
Tom Baker

C J Morgan <cjmorgan@...> wrote:
Mark Hahn wrote:
> Dang!  By my estimate that's about 6000 photos! 

Your calculation is about right. 

For our two weeks of holiday this year to Italy (mostly 
Tuscany and a couple of days in Venice), I perhaps shot 
a total of about 6000 frames. 

And I perhaps chucked about  1/3 of those before even 
backing  the rest of them up to CD.  So I came home with 
about  4000 frames. 

And in reviewing those, I perhaps regarded about 1200 
as "keepers" (i.e. worth making 4x6 prints and putting into
keepsake albums). 

And then of that, there was about 120 images which I was 
happy with (or happy enough with). 

About half of those (about 60) from that trip are here:

http://www.pbase.com/cjmorgan/italy_2003&page=all


And then of that, perhaps a final 15 of those will eventually get 
enlarged and wind up being framed and on the livingroom 
wall. 

So it takes a bit of time to distill it down. But yeah, you're
estimating is about right -- over those two weeks in Tuscany
& Venice, that camera went off about 6000 times.

***********

> Hope you were  traveling alone... 'cuz it's hard to imagine that 
> you were actually able to do anyting else...

It was myself and my wife. And some of it we did by car and
some if it we did by train. And more walking in two weeks than
I perhaps do in the whole rest of the year combined. LOL.

But we found time in there to see a couple of museums, and
a few churchs, and a day at a beach, and an afternoon taking
a tour in some caves, and trying a number of different restaurants
here and there, etc. etc.

But for me at least, I find I become much more mentally 
involved in any holiday I take if I have my camera with me --
I just find myself paying much more attention to what's most
immediately in front of me... if for no other reason than the
fact that this is the stuff which I'm going to be using to
construct or compose my pictures. So the more I shoot,
the more attentive I am on holidays. And perhaps that's
a good thing so that all the expense it took to get and
be there is well being utilized.

But that's me and what I personally find most enjoyable
from travel and holiday time -- I enjoy it most when I
get to make images.

CJ


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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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. 


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

A lot of beautiful shots!

mark

...
> http://www.pbase.com/cjmorgan/italy_2003&page=all
...

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> The EXIF data for virtually every photo shows deliberate underexposure
> of up to 2 stops.  

Okay, I see what you're saying.

Quite normally, I tend to underexpose 1/3 stop from whatever
the ISO marker is. Digital shooting, in that regard, much more 
reminds me of what it was like to work with transparency film 
than when I used negative film (when I use to shoot neg film,
for example, quite normal that I use to over-expose by
2/3 f/stop).

Beyond that, there were times where I was shooting on this
trip where I didn't altogether trust what my lightmeter was
telling me (lightmeters can read light, but they can't interpret
what they read). And so in those moments if there seemed
to me a discrepency between what the lightmeter said
and what the scene was showing me (perhaps reflecting
more light than the "average" scene), then I'd perhaps
bracket my exposures, and decide later on which final
image seemed the most workable.

And so yeah, sometimes it was just the case that the image
I most found workable was the one which was 1 or 2
f/stops underexposed relative to what the lightmeter
suggested was the exposure to shoot at.

************ 

> Most photos have been retouched to lighten or darken
> certain areas as well.

Oh yes, absolutely. Mother nature's lighting does not always
co-operate exactly the way I want her to. So not altogether
unusual that I will do some burning or dodging in different
areas of my image so that I get something which I am
personally more pleased with. 

And that part of it grew out of my decades of working in a 
physical darkroom (spending more hours and even years
in the dark than I'd care to admit), and so that part of my image 
making just carried on when I left the physical darkroom
for the digital darkroom (which at least allows me to
sit in front of my computer screen rather than sending
seemingly endless hours standing in the dark hunched
over chemical trays).

So hopefully that better answers the earlier question.

But the earlier answer also still stand as to why they
are the way they are -- my holiday... so I got to make
the images the way I wanted. And that's the way I 
make my images today.

CJ

CJ  -
 
Why are you entertaining this moron?  He doesn't have anything positive to say about anything/anybody.  He doesn't have any idea of what photography is all about.
 
Tom Baker

C J Morgan <cjmorgan@...> wrote:
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> The EXIF data for virtually every photo shows deliberate underexposure
> of up to 2 stops.  

Okay, I see what you're saying.

Quite normally, I tend to underexpose 1/3 stop from whatever
the ISO marker is. Digital shooting, in that regard, much more 
reminds me of what it was like to work with transparency film 
than when I used negative film (when I use to shoot neg film,
for example, quite normal that I use to over-expose by
2/3 f/stop).

Beyond that, there were times where I was shooting on this
trip where I didn't altogether trust what my lightmeter was
telling me (lightmeters can read light, but they can't interpret
what they read). And so in those moments if there seemed
to me a discrepency between what the lightmeter said
and what the scene was showing me (perhaps reflecting
more light than the "average" scene), then I'd perhaps
bracket my exposures, and decide later on which final
image seemed the most workable.

And so yeah, sometimes it was just the case that the image
I most found workable was the one which was 1 or 2
f/stops underexposed relative to what the lightmeter
suggested was the exposure to shoot at.

************ 

> Most photos have been retouched to lighten or darken
> certain areas as well.

Oh yes, absolutely. Mother nature's lighting does not always
co-operate exactly the way I want her to. So not altogether
unusual that I will do some burning or dodging in different
areas of my image so that I get something which I am
personally more pleased with. 

And that part of it grew out of my decades of working in a 
physical darkroom (spending more hours and even years
in the dark than I'd care to admit), and so that part of my image 
making just carried on when I left the physical darkroom
for the digital darkroom (which at least allows me to
sit in front of my computer screen rather than sending
seemingly endless hours standing in the dark hunched
over chemical trays).

So hopefully that better answers the earlier question.

But the earlier answer also still stand as to why they
are the way they are -- my holiday... so I got to make
the images the way I wanted. And that's the way I 
make my images today.

CJ




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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. 



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

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> Does the D60 standard matrix metering routinely overexpose? 

I can't speak for others or perhaps even make a generalization
about the D60 itself. But with the three digital cameras I do
have -- the D60, a smaller G2, and an even smaller pocket
S230 -- I quite normally shoot each of these cameras at
1/3 stop underexposed from what the lightmeter suggests.

That's what I find works best for me, although I'm not sure
if other photographers habitually slightly over or under
expose their digital images or if they just go with what
the lightmeter tells them.

CJ

Okay guys I asked nice yesterday to cut this stuff short. The "B&W vs.
Color" and now the "too many digi-shots" just goes on and on with little or
no connection to the group topic.

Nice pictures CJ but nothing to do with B&W printing.

If you guys can't stop, your ability to post is likely to suffer some
malfunctions.

Martin Wesley
Digital B&W, The Print
Group Owner

* -----Original Message-----
* From: C J Morgan [mailto:cjmorgan@...] 
* Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 6:16 PM
* To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
* Subject: Re: Re[4]: [Digital BW] too many digi-shots? Re: B&W 
* vs. Color
* 
* 
* Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
* > Does the D60 standard matrix metering routinely overexpose?
* 
* I can't speak for others or perhaps even make a 
* generalization about the D60 itself. But with the three 
* digital cameras I do have -- the D60, a smaller G2, and an 
* even smaller pocket S230 -- I quite normally shoot each of 
* these cameras at 1/3 stop underexposed from what the 
* lightmeter suggests.
* 
* That's what I find works best for me, although I'm not sure
* if other photographers habitually slightly over or under
* expose their digital images or if they just go with what
* the lightmeter tells them.
* 
* CJ
* 
* 
* 
* ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
* ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits 
* for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. 
* Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. 
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/ucIolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

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/

Martin Wesley wrote:
> Nice pictures CJ but nothing to do with B&W printing.

LOL. Okay, a very valid point. Sorry for the far tangenting
in discussion.And you're quite right, it is too far astray from 
what this group is all about.

I actually signed into this group a few days ago in good
part because I use to do a lot of black and white work
in my film and physical darkroom days, but haven't
found things too satisfying since using Photoshop
and shooting with the digital camera.

This seems like a group who perhaps has some
good experience in that department, and so I've been
reading along. 

Sorry to step in and good off topic. And quite right
that the conversation has been off for what this
particular group is all about.  My bad.

CJ


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

CJ,

You simply had the misfortune to stumble into a couple of oft repeated
debates that get inflicted on the group from time to time. 

Lots of good stuff here. Welcome to the group and I trust that you will find
the answers to any questions you might have about digital B&W output.

Martin Wesley
http://www.carolyn.cc/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



* -----Original Message-----
* From: C J Morgan [mailto:cjmorgan@...] 
* Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 6:58 PM
* To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
* Subject: Re: FROM THE MODERATOR was RE: Re[4]: [Digital BW] 
* too many digi-shots? Re: B&W vs. Color
* 
* 
* Martin Wesley wrote:
* > Nice pictures CJ but nothing to do with B&W printing.
* 
* LOL. Okay, a very valid point. Sorry for the far tangenting
* in discussion.And you're quite right, it is too far astray from 
* what this group is all about.
* 
* I actually signed into this group a few days ago in good
* part because I use to do a lot of black and white work
* in my film and physical darkroom days, but haven't
* found things too satisfying since using Photoshop
* and shooting with the digital camera.
* 
* This seems like a group who perhaps has some
* good experience in that department, and so I've been
* reading along. 
* 
* Sorry to step in and good off topic. And quite right
* that the conversation has been off for what this
* particular group is all about.  My bad.
* 
* CJ
* 
* 
* [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
* 
* 
* ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
* ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits 
* for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. 
* Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. 
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/ucIolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

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 have been doing chemical B & W photography for many years.  Trying hard 
not to be a luddite I decided I needed to become open to digital 
concepts.  I remain open.  Digital cameras have reached a point where I can 
do most of the same kind of things I do with a traditional film 
camera.  The advantage no film processing.  Now we get to the nub of my 
dilemana.  I know I can make photoshop do magical things that will allow me 
to replicate the kind of techniques I do in a darkroom.  The problem for me 
seems to come at the printing stage.  I've been reading along with the many 
thoughtful and highly technical experiments that folks discuss here.  As 
near as I can understand what folks have experienced and what they are 
doing the consensus is: You cannot replicate a chemical darkroom with a 
traditional printer without tweaking many different aspects of inks, ink 
jets etc.  As I read deeper I hear folks talking a lot about trials using 
these inks that involve multiple cleaning of ink delivery jets.  If all of 
this is true, I just cannot see myself switching from chemical to digital 
at this time.
Am I reading things correctly?  I don't really enjoy mixing chemicals.  My 
joy comes when, as a result of chemical mixing and the magic of the 
projector I create something that hints at what I imagined.  Then I'm in 
heaven.
Cleaning printer heads just doesn't do it for me.
So I guess my question is:  Is there a stock off the shelf printer with 
stock off the shelf ink supply in nifty little plug in modules that will 
allow me to come close to duplicating my dark room work assuming that I've 
done a good job in the image capture and photoshop manipulation.
If the answer is no, I'm quite willing to go back to the dark room and wait.
Thanks for reading.


Derek Hamlet
Victoria, B.C.
592-8590

> From: Derek Hamlet [mailto:derekhamlet@...]
>
> Am I reading things correctly?  I don't really enjoy mixing
> chemicals.  My
> joy comes when, as a result of chemical mixing and the magic of the
> projector I create something that hints at what I imagined.  Then I'm in
> heaven.
> Cleaning printer heads just doesn't do it for me.

Usually, cleaning a printhead involves pressing a button in a dialog box on
the screen and waiting about sixty seconds. Only occasionally does one have
to resort to any hand cleaning. I've only done it twice, although I don't
print large quantities.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Derek  -
 
The Epsons - 2200, 7600, and 9600 - with the Imageprint rip use OEM (Ultrachrome) inks, and are very dependable.  The issue with them is two fold:  1. Cost, and 2. the permanence of the b&w prints due to the fact that b&w prints from the Ultrachrome inks set will contain inks other than black.  That affects permanence compared to most of the other inksets you see discussed here.  But, the results from the Imageprint and the Epson printers is wonderful, and when printed on cotton based, acid free papers, and given reasonable care, will last your lifetime.  Some of the other ink/paper combinations discussed here will probably last several lifetimes.
 
I've been printing with the Epson 9600 for almost a year now, and have never had a clog, or even a bad print nozzle check.  Others that I know that use the 2200 with the OEM Ultrachrome inks report similar performance.  I use Imageprint, but I doubt that the rip contributes to the lack of clogs.
 
I gave away my fairly extensive dark room, in total, to a local high school in June.  I printing mostly b&w, and I'm not looking back.  I expectr that most on this forum, even those experiencing some problems, don't have a real desire to go back to the wet, either.  It's great fun, and the results can be extremely high quality.  And, it seems to be getting better every day (or so).
 
Tom Baker

Derek Hamlet <derekhamlet@...> wrote:
I have been doing chemical B & W photography for many years.  Trying hard 
not to be a luddite I decided I needed to become open to digital 
concepts.  I remain open.  Digital cameras have reached a point where I can 
do most of the same kind of things I do with a traditional film 
camera.  The advantage no film processing.  Now we get to the nub of my 
dilemana.  I know I can make photoshop do magical things that will allow me 
to replicate the kind of techniques I do in a darkroom.  The problem for me 
seems to come at the printing stage.  I've been reading along with the many 
thoughtful and highly technical experiments that folks discuss here.  As 
near as I can understand what folks have experienced and what they are 
doing the consensus is: You cannot replicate a chemical darkroom with a 
traditional printer without tweaking many different aspects of inks, ink 
jets etc.  As I read deeper I hear folks talking a lot about trials using 
these inks that involve multiple cleaning of ink delivery jets.  If all of 
this is true, I just cannot see myself switching from chemical to digital 
at this time.
Am I reading things correctly?  I don't really enjoy mixing chemicals.  My 
joy comes when, as a result of chemical mixing and the magic of the 
projector I create something that hints at what I imagined.  Then I'm in 
heaven.
Cleaning printer heads just doesn't do it for me.
So I guess my question is:  Is there a stock off the shelf printer with 
stock off the shelf ink supply in nifty little plug in modules that will 
allow me to come close to duplicating my dark room work assuming that I've 
done a good job in the image capture and photoshop manipulation.
If the answer is no, I'm quite willing to go back to the dark room and wait.
Thanks for reading.


Derek Hamlet
Victoria, B.C.
592-8590  


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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. 



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

Imageprint rip I use Imageprint,

> Tom Baker

Tom I'd like to come in here and ask a simple question What is 
Imageprint and how is it used with you printer and software.



Mark W.

other new guy

A RIP (Rastor Image Processor) is a specialized piece of software that, essentially, replaces the printer drivers supplied by the printer manufacturer.  RIP's actually come in several specialties.  Some specialize in print shop type activities, publishing, etc.  They provide facilities that the manufacturer's drivers don't.  In addition, however, the manufacturer's drivers do not do a very good job of photographic printing.  That's where Imageprint comes in.  It is a RIP developed with the primary purpose of serving photographers needs, both in terms of utility and image quality.  
 
The RIP's are all more or less expensive.  That's why, on this forum, you will see discussed alternative ways to achieve very high qulity b&w prints without the need for RIP's.  This is a practical approach diriven by two things:  1.  the need to keep the overall costs down, and 2. produce the absolute highest qulity b&w available.
 
If you have to print the highest quality color, a RIP is probably the only way to go right now.  But, as is the intent of this forum, if you are printing b&w, you can go with the various methods described on this forum, or go with a RIP.  The RIP is more expensive and less hassel, the other methods are less expensive and more hassel.  With either approach the quality can be outstanding.
 
Tom Baker
awahlster <awahlster@...> wrote:
Imageprint rip I use Imageprint,

> Tom Baker

Tom I'd like to come in here and ask a simple question What is 
Imageprint and how is it used with you printer and software.



Mark W.

other new guy


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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. 


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

Derek,

>...I know I can make photoshop do magical things that will allow me 
>to replicate the kind of techniques I do in a darkroom. ...

That is an understatement.  Once you get hooked you'll probably never want
to go back.

>  The problem ... tweaking many different aspects of inks, ink 
>jets etc. ... multiple cleaning of ink delivery jets.  
>...  I don't really enjoy mixing chemicals. 

I don't think that is true of most.  People like me who enjoy the technical
end of the process hang you here, but you can just go the "plug and play"
route -- most do.

>Cleaning printer heads just doesn't do it for me.

Every once in a while I have to do a cleaning cycle or two, but the vast
majority of times the nozzle checks are perfect.

>Is there a stock off the shelf printer with 
>stock off the shelf ink supply in nifty little plug in modules that will 
>allow me to come close to duplicating my dark room work ...

I recommend buying an Epson 1280.  There are a number of alternative B&W
solutions available for it.  I use the MIS Ultra Tone inkset, for which
there is are ready-made sets of control curves that you apply in Photoshop
(or Picture Window) that control the inks, including the ink tones/hues.  I
think most people get good results with no tweaking of any curves.

The main difference I see in the B&W output is that the pigmented inks do
best on matte paper.  That has a different look than the wet darkroom prints
when not under glass.  Under glass, even if in a cheap acrylic snapshot
frame, they can look virtually identical to silver prints.

Enjoy the journey.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks Tom, I know more now then before. I'm finding out just how 
much I need to know before I buy my new printer/printers and the 
systems to go with it/them to create a decent B&W and decent Color 
print. Without going broke or spending all my time playing with the 
computer.


Mark W.




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> A RIP (Rastor Image Processor) is a specialized piece of software 
that, essentially, replaces the printer drivers supplied by the 
printer manufacturer.  RIP's actually come in several specialties.  
Some specialize in print shop type activities, publishing, etc.  They 
provide facilities that the manufacturer's drivers don't.  In 
addition, however, the manufacturer's drivers do not do a very good 
job of photographic printing.  That's where Imageprint comes in.  It 
is a RIP developed with the primary purpose of serving photographers 
needs, both in terms of utility and image quality.  
>  
> The RIP's are all more or less expensive.  That's why, on this 
forum, you will see discussed alternative ways to achieve very high 
qulity b&w prints without the need for RIP's.  This is a practical 
approach diriven by two things:  1.  the need to keep the overall 
costs down, and 2. produce the absolute highest qulity b&w available.
>  
> If you have to print the highest quality color, a RIP is probably 
the only way to go right now.  But, as is the intent of this forum, 
if you are printing b&w, you can go with the various methods 
described on this forum, or go with a RIP.  The RIP is more expensive 
and less hassel, the other methods are less expensive and more 
hassel.  With either approach the quality can be outstanding.
>  
> Tom Baker
> awahlster <awahlster@a...> wrote:
> Imageprint rip I use Imageprint,
> 
> > Tom Baker
> 
> Tom I'd like to come in here and ask a simple question What is 
> Imageprint and how is it used with you printer and software.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark W.
> 
> other new guy
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
visiting this same page.
> 
> 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. 

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

C J Morgan wrote:
> John Vitollo wrote:
>> Nice job CJ - beautiful images!
>
> Thank-you John.
> CJ

I agree with that. Far above the majority of color shots made in holidays,
some are - for my taste - a bit overdone concerning PS editing and colors,
but the general impression they leave is one of exellence. And its not easy
*not to bore me* with color work.


regards Bernie

CJ,

I do the same; bracket with 1/3rd and 2/3rds under to make sure I don't blow
out the highlights. Which of the three I use just depends on the highlight
detail. It is easy in PS to recover shadow detail, especially in CS with the
new shadow/highlight tool. Or in Camera Raw or Nikon Capture. If you have
got raw files, you can 'overexpose' one version of a file and 'underexpose'
another, and then layer them and merge them to give the result you want.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "C J Morgan" <cjmorgan@...>


> Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> > The EXIF data for virtually every photo shows deliberate underexposure
> > of up to 2 stops.
>
> Okay, I see what you're saying.
>
> Quite normally, I tend to underexpose 1/3 stop from whatever
> the ISO marker is. Digital shooting, in that regard, much more
> reminds me of what it was like to work with transparency film
> than when I used negative film (when I use to shoot neg film,
> for example, quite normal that I use to over-expose by
> 2/3 f/stop).

I am simply amazed at the low ratio of "keeper" images people are getting.

No wonder people are happier with digital if they are keeping only one 
of 5 images much less one of 50!  Any editor I ever worked for would 
have kicked my butt for ratios like that.  Even today, if I "waste" more 
than 10%  or 15% of my imagery I get pretty peeved..

I'm sorry, but those are the kind of ratios you get from casual shooting 
- as the Brits would say: of "Holiday snaps"..

And digital leads to MORE not less of that... Instead of learning what 
one did right or wrong and  trying to replicate that or learn lessons 
from it, digital makes it way too easy to just shoot 50 shots instead of 
one - and take that serendipitous good shot home..

When I started making my living doing sports photography,  it was a film 
world..  Yet, there were sports shooters who shot rolls and rolls of 
film..  They would simply hold down the  shutter release  with the 
camera on auto during a drive to the basket (in basketball for example), 
instead of waiting, timing,  and shooting.  That's all fine and good if 
you aren't using ceiling strobes that take 3-4 seconds to recycle, but I 
was..  So, I had to learn to compose and time my shots, even with 
objects in motion...  I'd shot between 3 and 5 rolls at a basketball gam 
(often that included the film in a remote backboard camera.. Maybe 5 to 
7 at a football game...  At the same time, there'd be others shooting so 
fast their motor drives sounded like  machine-guns facing a Chinese 
human wave attack in 1951 Korea.  Almost invariably the guys/girls who 
shot like that were newspaper people. Sports Illustrated's staff people 
never shot like that, and my own shots, not those of the machine gun 
shooters ended up in Sports Illustrated, ESPN magazine, and bunches of 
other glossy publications - while theirs were relegated to where they 
belonged - the back page of a local newspaper.  That relationship hasn't 
changed in the digital age, if anything the spread is greater between 
someone who shoots carefully and someone who shoots like a tommy 
gunner.  One example - you can easily shoot a test shot on digital and 
adjust the settings to properly take advantage of the lighting you have 
(or go and change the lighting), however, being able to understand 
lighting and pre-visualize fully remains an advantage - unfortunately, 
life proceeds apace - sometimes you won't get the chance to re-shoot and 
the guy/girl who  could set the camera correctly without a test shot 
will have the seminal image...

The point is that there is NO substitute for learning how to shoot, how 
to light, how to compose, etc.  Digital can make that harder OR easier.  
For those willing to take time and learn, digital offers the opportunity 
for immediate feedback and a much faster learning curve.  For those who 
just want a few nice "snaps" - people who would probably be better off 
shooting HDTV video and simply using a screen grab instead of  stills - 
it means they can shoot tons of images ignoring the very lessons they 
could learn..  Like any technological advance it's a sword that cuts 
both ways..  For a thoughtful person it can allow people who didn't get 
it before (because of the long delays between shooting and print) to 
actually become relatively proficient, on the other hand it means 
there's a LOT MORE crap out there..


 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>John Vitollo writes:
>
>  
>
>>You got to be kidding...right?
>>    
>>
>
>No.
>
>  
>
>>Exposure seems right on to me.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
The final images look nice.. But yes, they feel vignetted..

It makes you feel like you are peering through a window.. I don't enjoy 
the feeling, but that does not mean I don't like the images.. Nor does 
it mean that others will even perceive it, much less dislike the effect..

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

C J Morgan wrote:

>
> Digital shooting, in that regard, much more 
>reminds me of what it was like to work with transparency film 
>than when I used negative film (when I use to shoot neg film,
>for example, quite normal that I use to over-expose by
>2/3 f/stop).
>
>  
>
Yup, that's why the transition to digital for me has been easy..  It is 
like shooting transparency/slide film...  In two related  senses:

1)   Very narrow latitude

2)    Expose for the highlights.


This does point out key differences from negatives (especially B&W ones)..

With good B&W film (or even color negative).. You expose for the 
shadows, i.e. overexpose by 2/3 a stop in your case.

As for whether this will have one over-riding the matrix meter much it 
depends on the camera..  It also depends on things like whether or not 
you are using flash, and how contrasty the lighting you are dealing with 
is..

As one quick example..  In basketball I shoot transparency film tack on 
to my incident meter reading, whether I'm using strobes or ambient..  
BUT, for football, it depends.. In strong sunlight, I'll purposely 
over-expose by 2/3 a stop, while in flat lighting I shoot tack on 
again... Why?  In football I have people wearing helmets.. If I don't 
overexpose in contrasty lighting I get NO detail at all inside the 
helmet...  Similar rules end up applying to digital..

This also makes clear why a good B&W (or even color) film shot of the 
same image as a good digital shot, should almost always have more usable 
information... It's simply inherent in the broader latitude.. Especially 
with PhotoShop and a a scanner that's info you can put on a print..

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V. 
Image Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> I am simply amazed at the low ratio of "keeper" images people are 
getting.
> Keith Krebs
> 
I'm simply amazed at the number of shots taken by digital 
photographers these days. (This is not a digital vs film thing).
I guess technology allows it and why not use it, since it doesnt cost 
more to take 50 or 300 shots if you have the memory cards.

I remember reading about french photographer Edouard Boubat, who in 
the 1950's, when film wasn't cheap in comparaison to the pay, would 
go out on a commercial shoot with a Rolleiflex and one roll of film. 
At the end of the day, he sometimes still had unexposed shots that he 
used for his personal photography.

That would probably be called extreme by today's standard, but I 
wonder what's the ratio of keepers for someone who uses an 8x10 
camera today ?

For those who don't know Boubat's work:
http://www.ewgalerie.com/Fotografen/Boubat.html

Cheers,
Andre

sceptre12345 writes:

> I'm simply amazed at the number of shots taken by digital
> photographers these days. (This is not a digital vs film thing).
> I guess technology allows it and why not use it, since it doesnt cost 
> more to take 50 or 300 shots if you have the memory cards.

It's the monkeys-with-typewriters school of photography.  If you shoot
enough pictures, even at random, a few of them are sure to win prizes.

> I remember reading about french photographer Edouard Boubat, who in
> the 1950's, when film wasn't cheap in comparaison to the pay, would 
> go out on a commercial shoot with a Rolleiflex and one roll of film. 
> At the end of the day, he sometimes still had unexposed shots that he 
> used for his personal photography.

In the days when sheet film was still the rule, photojournalists only
had a few exposures to use on any one assignment.

I agree with the moderator, only it reminds me more of grade school.

Robert Young
________________________________________________________

Hello,

sceptre12345 wrote:
> I'm simply amazed at the number of shots taken by digital
> photographers these days. (This is not a digital vs film thing).
> I guess technology allows it and why not use it, since it doesnt cost
> more to take 50 or 300 shots if you have the memory cards.

Why be amazed? Everone should practice what works best for him or her. In
the end its what counts is whether there are some truly good or even great
shots, or not. I don't care if the guy shot 130 or 12000 bad shots before
the one great.

> I remember reading about french photographer Edouard Boubat, who in
> the 1950's, when film wasn't cheap in comparaison to the pay, would
> go out on a commercial shoot with a Rolleiflex and one roll of film.

Those are the "legend stories" for the photo teaching classes and the
handbooks of b&w photography. But who really knows what photographer shot
how many rolls in his life - and I dont care either. H. Cartier- Bresson
once said: "Your first ten thousand shots will be your worst". So he
probably was shooting quite a lot. Does this make him a less excellent
photographer?

regards Bernie

>You have at least three excellent and proven ways to test 
>digital printing: Black only on a 1280 or 2200 printer,  
>Piezography - a turn-key process, or the Paul Roark (or similar) 
>curves which take a little more savvy.  

There is also Septone, another turnkey process.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bernhard Ess" 
<albatros-@g...> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> sceptre12345 wrote:
> > I'm simply amazed at the number of shots taken by digital
> > photographers these days. (This is not a digital vs film thing).
> > I guess technology allows it and why not use it, since it doesnt 
cost
> > more to take 50 or 300 shots if you have the memory cards.
> 
> Why be amazed? 

Yes I'm amazed. Shooting 645 format, I usually don't come home with 
300-500 shots in a day and I can't go thru my film with a delete key!

> > I remember reading about french photographer Edouard Boubat, who 
in
> > the 1950's, when film wasn't cheap in comparaison to the pay, 
would
> > go out on a commercial shoot with a Rolleiflex and one roll of 
film.
> 
> Those are the "legend stories" for the photo teaching classes and 
the
> handbooks of b&w photography. 

That was the norm in those days. Boubat wasn't the only one to 
practice that kind of frugal photography. It was probably acquired 
after working with large format and the "try to make every shot count 
philosophy" which can still be applied to any photographic camera. 


>  H. Cartier- Bresson
> once said: "Your first ten thousand shots will be your worst". So he
> probably was shooting quite a lot. Does this make him a less 
excellent
> photographer?

HCB never spent one minute in the darkroom. He hated lab work, and 
didn't think he was good enough. One day he got fed up with 
photography and went back to painting. Probably after shooting one 
roll too many!…just joking.

Did shooting less made Boubat and his contemporaries less excellent 
photographers ?

Cheers,
Andre

sceptre12345 wrote:
>
> HCB never spent one minute in the darkroom. He hated lab work, and
> didn't think he was good enough. One day he got fed up with
> photography and went back to painting. Probably after shooting one
> roll too many!.just joking.

Yes, he might have felt that the modern times (basically from the early
70ies when he stopped photographing) weren't something he was very keen on
photographing. I just bought a very nice book with about 600 of his most
famous photos.

> Did shooting less made Boubat and his contemporaries less excellent
> photographers ?

Of course not, and this is what I said, no? Everyone should find his
shooting style. Sure, a certain level of consciousness about what and how to
shoot is essential, but some may have to see the photo before their inner
eye before pressing the shutter release, others may catch - as by chance -
the descisive moment without any preparation. Maybe by a feeling or
intuition...


regards Bernie

I just bought a very nice book with about 600 of his most
> famous photos.
> regards Bernie

Bernie,
What's the name of the book and is it very expensive ?
Thanks,
Andre

sceptre12345 wrote:
> I just bought a very nice book with about 600 of his most
>> famous photos.
>> regards Bernie
>
> Bernie,
> What's the name of the book and is it very expensive ?
> Thanks,
> Andre

Andre, its the german translation of a monograph (a propos the retrospective
in Paris for his 95th birthday in 2003 - he's still alive) which ruhns under
the title "the man the image and the world" - )
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0500542678/qid=1070212041/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-1185173-5265764?v=glance&n=507846

There is also a smaller section dedicated to his paintings and some very
interesting texts by and about him. For someone who hasn't yet some Cartier
Bresson stuff this is a very good start indeed. Not really cheap however,
the german price is even higher than at Amazon.com ...

regards, Bernie

At 01:36 AM 11/30/03 +0000, you wrote:
>"Anthony G. Atkielski"  wrote:
>
> > > http://www.pbase.com/cjmorgan/italy_2003&page=all
> >
> > Almost every photo has been deliberately underexposed and heavily
> > Photoshopped.  How come?
>
>You got to be kidding...right? Exposure seems right on to me. You need to 
>calibrate
>your monitor and/or get glasses.
>
>Nice job CJ - beautiful images!

They are nice looking over-all but I'll have to agree they look pretty 
"shopped" to me too.  What counts are results - right?  :-)

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

Andre,

> That would probably be called extreme by today's standard, but I
> wonder what's the ratio of keepers for someone who uses an 8x10
> camera today ?


I don't have any numbers for you, but the more I use my 4x5 the less film I
take. Usually one or two Grafmatics (6 shot magazine). I'm finally at the
point where if I don't find the shot I'll go home with nothing
exposed--whereas I used to feel like I had to come home with something.
And... it saves on EEM/UT ink for proofing something I'm already not
satisfied with.

> For those who don't know Boubat's work:
> http://www.ewgalerie.com/Fotografen/Boubat.html

Wow. Great link!

Jon

At 09:53 PM 11/29/03 -0800, you wrote:
>I have been doing chemical B & W photography for many years.  Trying hard
>not to be a luddite I decided I needed to become open to digital
>concepts.  I remain open.  Digital cameras have reached a point where I can
>do most of the same kind of things I do with a traditional film
>camera.  The advantage no film processing.  Now we get to the nub of my
>dilemana.  I know I can make photoshop do magical things that will allow me
>to replicate the kind of techniques I do in a darkroom.  The problem for me
>seems to come at the printing stage.  I've been reading along with the many
>thoughtful and highly technical experiments that folks discuss here.  As
>near as I can understand what folks have experienced and what they are
>doing the consensus is: You cannot replicate a chemical darkroom with a
>traditional printer without tweaking many different aspects of inks, ink
>jets etc.  As I read deeper I hear folks talking a lot about trials using
>these inks that involve multiple cleaning of ink delivery jets.  If all of
>this is true, I just cannot see myself switching from chemical to digital
>at this time.
>Am I reading things correctly?  I don't really enjoy mixing chemicals.  My
>joy comes when, as a result of chemical mixing and the magic of the
>projector I create something that hints at what I imagined.  Then I'm in
>heaven.
>Cleaning printer heads just doesn't do it for me.
>So I guess my question is:  Is there a stock off the shelf printer with
>stock off the shelf ink supply in nifty little plug in modules that will
>allow me to come close to duplicating my dark room work assuming that I've
>done a good job in the image capture and photoshop manipulation.
>If the answer is no, I'm quite willing to go back to the dark room and wait.
>Thanks for reading.
>
>
>Derek Hamlet
>Victoria, B.C.
>592-8590

Derek,

First, a reminder that you are likely to see a lot more posts about 
problems with B/W printing than anything else. Many people have almost no 
problems with clogs, etc.

Second, you are fortunate to be making the leap from the dark at a time 
when great advances in the craft have been made - see Clayton's comments a 
couple days ago.  You have at least three excellent and proven ways to test 
digital printing: Black only on a 1280 or 2200 printer,  Piezography - a 
turn-key process, or the Paul Roark (or similar) curves which take a little 
more savvy.  In each case there is a wealth of  expert help and opinion on 
this list, the Epson printer list, and the Pieziography list.

Good luck,

AZ



Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

At 11:28 PM -0800 11/29/03, Tom Baker wrote:
>A RIP (Rastor Image Processor) is a specialized piece of software 
>that, essentially, replaces the printer drivers supplied by the 
>printer manufacturer.  RIP's actually come in several specialties. 
>Some specialize in print shop type activities, publishing, etc. 
>They provide facilities that the manufacturer's drivers don't.  In 
>addition, however, the manufacturer's drivers do not do a very good 
>job of photographic printing.  That's where Imageprint comes in.  It 
>is a RIP developed with the primary purpose of serving photographers 
>needs, both in terms of utility and image quality. 
>
>The RIP's are all more or less expensive. [snip]

Maybe Tom was, probably with good reason, thinking in a Microsoft 
Windows context when he wrote this, because Roy Harrington makes his 
Quad Tone Rip (QTR) available at no charge on

<http://harrington.com>

Although there's arguably never been a better time, not everyone can, 
would, or should switch to a Mac or even upgrade to MacOS X. But in 
addition to that heavily-sweetened Apple flavor of Unix, there's also 
a Linux QTR option on Roy Harrington's site. It's free too, but I'm a 
wimp, and besides, Christmas is coming ... .
--
Sam

Derek

I would add the following comment:  you don¹t need to make at this stage the
definitive decision as to the best technology mix.  Personally, I would
recommend an explorative and incremental approach.  It is not clear from
your post as to whether you also have an interest in printing colour images
in addition to B&W.  I will assume for now that you do.  The Epson printers
mentioned (1280, 2100/2200, 7600 and 9600) are all fantastic printers for
which a lot of non-OEM material is available (inks, drivers, RIPs etc).  I
personally purchased the 2100 (mostly due to budget considerations) but
might now consider the larger, new 4000 model.  Print size and cost are key
considerations here.   I have never had any issues with the printer at all.
In this forum there is much discussion re dedicated B&W printers.  I have no
doubt that there are advantages to be had from dedicating a printer solely
to B&W.  However, it is not necessary on day one.  Select a printer which
best fits your cost/size matrix and work from there.  I am very happy with
the colour images printed on my 2100 using the OEM Ultrachrome inks and the
Epson driver but with correct coloursync setup and good profiles for my
printer/media combinations.  I was not happy with the results for B&W though
due to the often mentioned metamerism issues and so I invested time (and
thanks particularly to Roy, no monetary cost) in deploying Quadtone RIP (I
use a Mac).  I am now happy with my much improved B&W printing.  However,
that¹s not to say that in the future I might not venture further eg using
specialist B&W inks like the MIS Ultratones, or Imageprint to perhaps
improve my colour work, or even purchasing another printer and dedicating
one of the two to B&W.

In the pursuit for the Holy Grail, many on this forum sometimes (or perhaps
³particularly² lately) overlook the basic quest ­ getting started and having
fun.  And digital is fun.  I have found a new vigour in my passion for
photography by being able to explore the capabilities of PS and print my own
work ­ and all for a very modest cost.  I am sure that if, or rather when, I
purchase a top-of-line digital camera or MF digital back (one of the best
things I have ever bought is the Canon Ixus ­ simply for the fun of taking
fun pictures in a carefree and [incrementally] costless fashion) I will gain
further vigour as the world of possibilities expands yet again.

As with the wet darkroom ­ get started, explore, learn, add and become more
³specialised² as your knowledge base demands and allows refinement of your
techniques.

Cheers

Steve

From: Alan Zinn <AZinn@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:43:54 -0800
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Moving from Chemical to Digital

At 09:53 PM 11/29/03 -0800, you wrote:
>I have been doing chemical B & W photography for many years.  Trying hard
>not to be a luddite I decided I needed to become open to digital
>concepts.  I remain open.  Digital cameras have reached a point where I can
>do most of the same kind of things I do with a traditional film
>camera.  The advantage no film processing.  Now we get to the nub of my
>dilemana.  I know I can make photoshop do magical things that will allow me
>to replicate the kind of techniques I do in a darkroom.  The problem for me
>seems to come at the printing stage.  I've been reading along with the many
>thoughtful and highly technical experiments that folks discuss here.  As
>near as I can understand what folks have experienced and what they are
>doing the consensus is: You cannot replicate a chemical darkroom with a
>traditional printer without tweaking many different aspects of inks, ink
>jets etc.  As I read deeper I hear folks talking a lot about trials using
>these inks that involve multiple cleaning of ink delivery jets.  If all of
>this is true, I just cannot see myself switching from chemical to digital
>at this time.
>Am I reading things correctly?  I don't really enjoy mixing chemicals.  My
>joy comes when, as a result of chemical mixing and the magic of the
>projector I create something that hints at what I imagined.  Then I'm in
>heaven.
>Cleaning printer heads just doesn't do it for me.
>So I guess my question is:  Is there a stock off the shelf printer with
>stock off the shelf ink supply in nifty little plug in modules that will
>allow me to come close to duplicating my dark room work assuming that I've
>done a good job in the image capture and photoshop manipulation.
>If the answer is no, I'm quite willing to go back to the dark room and wait.
>Thanks for reading.
>
>
>Derek Hamlet
>Victoria, B.C.
>592-8590

Derek,

First, a reminder that you are likely to see a lot more posts about
problems with B/W printing than anything else. Many people have almost no
problems with clogs, etc.

Second, you are fortunate to be making the leap from the dark at a time
when great advances in the craft have been made - see Clayton's comments a
couple days ago.  You have at least three excellent and proven ways to test
digital printing: Black only on a 1280 or 2200 printer,  Piezography - a
turn-key process, or the Paul Roark (or similar) curves which take a little
more savvy.  In each case there is a wealth of  expert help and opinion on
this list, the Epson printer list, and the Pieziography list.

Good luck,

AZ



Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 <http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12c2h800b/M=266807.4061684.5387749.3957873/D=egrou
pweb/S=1705019182:HM/EXP=1070289574/A=1862004/R=1/*http://click.atdmt.com/AV
E/go/yhxxxbre02200378ave/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/&time=1070203174998370>

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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

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
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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

Sam McCandless wrote:
>>That's where Imageprint comes in.  It
>> is a RIP developed with the primary purpose of serving photographers
>> needs, both in terms of utility and image quality.

Will the ImagePrint RIP also work with the MIS Ultra Chrome compatible color
inks? Or if not, what would have to be done to make it work like the
original Epson inks?

>> The RIP's are all more or less expensive. [snip]
>
> Maybe Tom was, probably with good reason, thinking in a Microsoft
> Windows context when he wrote this, because Roy Harrington makes his
> Quad Tone Rip (QTR) available at no charge on
>
> <http://harrington.com>
>

As I am on a PC I would have to get - next to Win XP - a Linux installation
for printing. Would I have to get also a dedicated graphic applicaiton or
could I just switch to Linux to print out my photos I edited under PS/ Win
XP?

regards, Bernie

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bernhard Ess" 
<albatros-@g...> wrote:
> sceptre12345 wrote:
> > I just bought a very nice book with about 600 of his most
> >> famous photos.
> >> regards Bernie
> >
> > Bernie,
> > What's the name of the book and is it very expensive ?
> > Thanks,
> > Andre
> 
> Andre, its the german translation of a monograph (a propos the 
retrospective
> in Paris for his 95th birthday in 2003 - he's still alive) which 
ruhns under
> the title "the man the image and the world" - )
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
/0500542678/qid=1070212041/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-1185173-5265764?
v=glance&n=507846
> 
> There is also a smaller section dedicated to his paintings and some 
very
> interesting texts by and about him. For someone who hasn't yet some 
Cartier
> Bresson stuff this is a very good start indeed. Not really cheap 
however,
> the german price is even higher than at Amazon.com ...
> 
> regards, Bernie

I do have one book of monsieur Henri's photographs called L'Autre 
Chine (The other China). These photographs (1948-49)show the retreat 
of the Kuo-min-tang troops and the arrival of Mao Zedong's "Popular 
Army". Even though it must have been a very scary time, there's a 
certain tranquility about these b&w photographs, depicting no 
violence. HCB's humanism is apparent.
There's probably some of these photos in the books you have bought.
Cheers,
Andre

sceptre12345 wrote:
>Even though it must have been a very scary time, there's a
> certain tranquility about these b&w photographs, depicting no
> violence. HCB's humanism is apparent.

Absolutely, HCB never shows violence for the sake of violence, and even in
misery her preferred to show the little glimpse of a smile or a typical
human behaviour. There was a documentary at his 95th (or so) birthday, and
he still is a man full of warmth and humour and life.

Its a question of attitude, and I like his approach quite a bit.

> There's probably some of these photos in the books you have bought.

Yes indeed, there are photos of all phases of his career.

regards, Bernie

Can we please stop with all the elitist garbage.  Photography is fun.
Technology (film or digital capture, wet or digital printing) has made it
all the more accessible and cheaper than it has ever been.  The world is a
better place as a result ­ whether it be the contribution to art, fun,
memory or anything else.  Take pictures.  Experiment.  Take lots of
pictures.  Take even more pictures.  But if you want to progress as a
photographer take the time to think about what worked and what didn¹t so
that you can apply it to the next situation.  One keeper in 10?  One keeper
in a 1000?  Waffle.  What¹s important is whether a) you like the keeper and
b) whether you understand what it is about the keeper that you are attracted
to and why and how it was that you were able to capture it.  Take pictures.
Study them and your technique.  Take even more pictures!!

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:45:58 +0100
To: sceptre12345 <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: B&W vs. Color

sceptre12345 writes:

> I'm simply amazed at the number of shots taken by digital
> photographers these days. (This is not a digital vs film thing).
> I guess technology allows it and why not use it, since it doesnt cost
> more to take 50 or 300 shots if you have the memory cards.

It's the monkeys-with-typewriters school of photography.  If you shoot
enough pictures, even at random, a few of them are sure to win prizes.

> I remember reading about french photographer Edouard Boubat, who in
> the 1950's, when film wasn't cheap in comparaison to the pay, would
> go out on a commercial shoot with a Rolleiflex and one roll of film.
> At the end of the day, he sometimes still had unexposed shots that he
> used for his personal photography.

In the days when sheet film was still the rule, photojournalists only
had a few exposures to use on any one assignment.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 <http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12c44vadi/M=266807.4061684.5387749.3957873/D=egrou
pweb/S=1705019182:HM/EXP=1070286361/A=1862004/R=1/*http://click.atdmt.com/AV
E/go/yhxxxbre02200378ave/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/&time=1070199961064669>

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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

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
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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

> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
> 
> It's the monkeys-with-typewriters school of photography.  If you shoot
> enough pictures, even at random, a few of them are sure to win prizes.

Yeah, except that it doesn't actually work with monkeys. ;-)

-- 

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Yep!  I can only think in Win.  And, now only Win XP, at that.  Not because I'm particularly pleased with Microsoft, just because it's the path of least resistance.  Certainly, if someone needs to persue all of this computer stuff at least cost Microsoft would not be the first choice.  The good part of all of this is that Paul and some of the others really make an effort to do high quality work at least cost.  So, in terms of results, there are real alternatives.
 
Tom Baker
 
P.S. I've spent my time in the barrel trying to get Linux productive for me.  No luck.  I wouldn't want to try to take on Linux as a newbe, and try to get some of these b&w printing solutions running under it at the same time.  Not to say one shouldn't or couldn't, but not me.

Sam McCandless <samcc@...> wrote:
At 11:28 PM -0800 11/29/03, Tom Baker wrote:
>A RIP (Rastor Image Processor) is a specialized piece of software 
>that, essentially, replaces the printer drivers supplied by the 
>printer manufacturer.  RIP's actually come in several specialties. 
>Some specialize in print shop type activities, publishing, etc. 
>They provide facilities that the manufacturer's drivers don't.  In 
>addition, however, the manufacturer's drivers do not do a very good 
>job of photographic printing.  That's where Imageprint comes in.  It 
>is a RIP developed with the primary purpose of serving photographers 
>needs, both in terms of utility and image quality. 
>
>The RIP's are all more or less expensive. [snip]

Maybe Tom was, probably with good reason, thinking in a Microsoft 
Windows context when he wrote this, because Roy Harrington makes his 
Quad Tone Rip (QTR) available at no charge on

<http://harrington.com>

Although there's arguably never been a better time, not everyone can, 
would, or should switch to a Mac or even upgrade to MacOS X. But in 
addition to that heavily-sweetened Apple flavor of Unix, there's also 
a Linux QTR option on Roy Harrington's site. It's free too, but I'm a 
wimp, and besides, Christmas is coming ... .
--
Sam

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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. 


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

Sam  -
 
At last check Colorbyte Software (Imageprint makers) would only profile Ultrachrome inks on the 2100/2200, 7600, 9600 printers.  It seems that one should be able to profile other ink/paper combinations using Imageprint, but they won't do it.  Maybe someone on this list has already profiled this.  If so, on the Epsons one profile should be very close on someone else's Epson of the same model.
 
Tom Baker

Bernhard Ess <albatros-@...> wrote:
Sam McCandless wrote:
>>That's where Imageprint comes in.  It
>> is a RIP developed with the primary purpose of serving photographers
>> needs, both in terms of utility and image quality.

Will the ImagePrint RIP also work with the MIS Ultra Chrome compatible color
inks? Or if not, what would have to be done to make it work like the
original Epson inks?

>> The RIP's are all more or less expensive. [snip]
>
> Maybe Tom was, probably with good reason, thinking in a Microsoft
> Windows context when he wrote this, because Roy Harrington makes his
> Quad Tone Rip (QTR) available at no charge on
>
> <http://harrington.com>
>

As I am on a PC I would have to get - next to Win XP - a Linux installation
for printing. Would I have to get also a dedicated graphic applicaiton or
could I just switch to Linux to print out my photos I edited under PS/ Win
XP?

regards, Bernie



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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. 


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

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  Much appreciated.
At 10:02 AM 11/30/03, you wrote:
>Derek
>
>I would add the following comment:  you don¹t need to make at this stage the
>definitive decision as to the best technology mix.  Personally, I would
>recommend an explorative and incremental approach.  It is not clear from
>your post as to whether you also have an interest in printing colour images
>in addition to B&W.  I will assume for now that you do.  The Epson printers
>mentioned (1280, 2100/2200, 7600 and 9600) are all fantastic printers for
>which a lot of non-OEM material is available (inks, drivers, RIPs etc).  I
>personally purchased the 2100 (mostly due to budget considerations) but
>might now consider the larger, new 4000 model.  Print size and cost are key
>considerations here.   I have never had any issues with the printer at all.
>In this forum there is much discussion re dedicated B&W printers.  I have no
>doubt that there are advantages to be had from dedicating a printer solely
>to B&W.  However, it is not necessary on day one.  Select a printer which
>best fits your cost/size matrix and work from there.  I am very happy with
>the colour images printed on my 2100 using the OEM Ultrachrome inks and the
>Epson driver but with correct coloursync setup and good profiles for my
>printer/media combinations.  I was not happy with the results for B&W though
>due to the often mentioned metamerism issues and so I invested time (and
>thanks particularly to Roy, no monetary cost) in deploying Quadtone RIP (I
>use a Mac).  I am now happy with my much improved B&W printing.  However,
>that¹s not to say that in the future I might not venture further eg using
>specialist B&W inks like the MIS Ultratones, or Imageprint to perhaps
>improve my colour work, or even purchasing another printer and dedicating
>one of the two to B&W.
>
>In the pursuit for the Holy Grail, many on this forum sometimes (or perhaps
>³particularly² lately) overlook the basic quest ­ getting started and having
>fun.  And digital is fun.  I have found a new vigour in my passion for
>photography by being able to explore the capabilities of PS and print my own
>work ­ and all for a very modest cost.  I am sure that if, or rather when, I
>purchase a top-of-line digital camera or MF digital back (one of the best
>things I have ever bought is the Canon Ixus ­ simply for the fun of taking
>fun pictures in a carefree and [incrementally] costless fashion) I will gain
>further vigour as the world of possibilities expands yet again.
>
>As with the wet darkroom ­ get started, explore, learn, add and become more
>³specialised² as your knowledge base demands and allows refinement of your
>techniques.
>
>Cheers
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>From: Alan Zinn <AZinn@netbox.com>
>Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:43:54 -0800
>To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Moving from Chemical to Digital
>
>At 09:53 PM 11/29/03 -0800, you wrote:
> >I have been doing chemical B & W photography for many years.  Trying hard
> >not to be a luddite I decided I needed to become open to digital
> >concepts.  I remain open.  Digital cameras have reached a point where I can
> >do most of the same kind of things I do with a traditional film
> >camera.  The advantage no film processing.  Now we get to the nub of my
> >dilemana.  I know I can make photoshop do magical things that will allow me
> >to replicate the kind of techniques I do in a darkroom.  The problem for me
> >seems to come at the printing stage.  I've been reading along with the many
> >thoughtful and highly technical experiments that folks discuss here.  As
> >near as I can understand what folks have experienced and what they are
> >doing the consensus is: You cannot replicate a chemical darkroom with a
> >traditional printer without tweaking many different aspects of inks, ink
> >jets etc.  As I read deeper I hear folks talking a lot about trials using
> >these inks that involve multiple cleaning of ink delivery jets.  If all of
> >this is true, I just cannot see myself switching from chemical to digital
> >at this time.
> >Am I reading things correctly?  I don't really enjoy mixing chemicals.  My
> >joy comes when, as a result of chemical mixing and the magic of the
> >projector I create something that hints at what I imagined.  Then I'm in
> >heaven.
> >Cleaning printer heads just doesn't do it for me.
> >So I guess my question is:  Is there a stock off the shelf printer with
> >stock off the shelf ink supply in nifty little plug in modules that will
> >allow me to come close to duplicating my dark room work assuming that I've
> >done a good job in the image capture and photoshop manipulation.
> >If the answer is no, I'm quite willing to go back to the dark room and wait.
> >Thanks for reading.
> >
> >
> >Derek Hamlet
> >Victoria, B.C.
> >592-8590
>
>Derek,
>
>First, a reminder that you are likely to see a lot more posts about
>problems with B/W printing than anything else. Many people have almost no
>problems with clogs, etc.
>
>Second, you are fortunate to be making the leap from the dark at a time
>when great advances in the craft have been made - see Clayton's comments a
>couple days ago.  You have at least three excellent and proven ways to test
>digital printing: Black only on a 1280 or 2200 printer,  Piezography - a
>turn-key process, or the Paul Roark (or similar) curves which take a little
>more savvy.  In each case there is a wealth of  expert help and opinion on
>this list, the Epson printer list, and the Pieziography list.
>
>Good luck,
>
>AZ
>
>
>
>Build a Lookaround!
>The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
>NOW SHIPPING
><http://www.panoramacamera.us>http://www.panoramacamera.us
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12c2h800b/M=266807.4061684.5387749.3957873/D=egrou>http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12c2h800b/M=266807.4061684.5387749.3957873/D=egrou
>pweb/S=1705019182:HM/EXP=1070289574/A=1862004/R=1/*<http://click.atdmt.com/AV>http://click.atdmt.com/AV
>E/go/yhxxxbre02200378ave/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/&time=1070203174998370>
>
>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>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
>
>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
><<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cbt27rd/M=266807.4061684.5387749.3957873/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/EXP=1070301746/A=1862004/R=1/*http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/yhxxxbre02200378ave/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/&time=1070215346508147>
>[]
>
>[]
>
>
>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>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
>page.
>
>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 
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Derek Hamlet
Victoria, B.C.
592-8590

My guess is that if enough prospective customers for a given printer 
asked them to profile a new-to-ImagePrint combination of ink and 
paper, Colorbyte would at least try to do it. But I'd also talk to

<http://www.chromix.com/>

and

<http://www.profilecity.com/products/profile.html>

about their interest in doing it. Custom profiles for as many as ten 
ink-and-paper combinations can, for example, be as little as $70 
apiece at CHROMiX. How they would feel about more than one of us 
dividing up the ten among us, I don't know. But "one-offs" are as 
little as $99 each at both CHROMiX and ProfileCity. And that's for 
printer-specific profiles.

I'm not an expert, but I don't think profiles which are only 
model-specific would be a good value. And even for a given printer, 
I'd consider buying a new profile after buying ink or paper from a 
new batch of it - when paper and ink manufacturers or suppliers will 
help with that. Even when batch-to-batch differences are small, I'm 
not sure the printers themselves don't change over the course of 
their lifetime.
--
Sam

>Sam  -
>
>At last check Colorbyte Software (Imageprint makers) would only 
>profile Ultrachrome inks on the 2100/2200, 7600, 9600 printers.  It 
>seems that one should be able to profile other ink/paper 
>combinations using Imageprint, but they won't do it.  Maybe someone 
>on this list has already profiled this.  If so, on the Epsons one 
>profile should be very close on someone else's Epson of the same 
>model.
>
>Tom Baker
>
>Bernhard Ess <albatros-@...> wrote:
>Sam McCandless wrote:
>>>That's where Imageprint comes in.  It
>>>  is a RIP developed with the primary purpose of serving photographers
>>>  needs, both in terms of utility and image quality.
>
>Will the ImagePrint RIP also work with the MIS Ultra Chrome compatible color
>inks? Or if not, what would have to be done to make it work like the
>original Epson inks?
>
>>>  The RIP's are all more or less expensive. [snip]
>>
>>  Maybe Tom was, probably with good reason, thinking in a Microsoft
>>  Windows context when he wrote this, because Roy Harrington makes his
>>  Quad Tone Rip (QTR) available at no charge on
>>
>>  <http://harrington.com>
>>
>
>As I am on a PC I would have to get - next to Win XP - a Linux installation
>for printing. Would I have to get also a dedicated graphic applicaiton or
>could I just switch to Linux to print out my photos I edited under PS/ Win
>XP?
>
>regards, Bernie
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>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
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
>to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
>this same page.
>
>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.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>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
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
>to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
>this same page.
>
>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/

All of Imageprints are model specific.  Apparently, the manufacturing tolerances on the Ultrachrome printers are such that it works fine.  Could be the manufacturing tolerances on the Ultrachrome inks are equally as good.  My experience is that they are great.  Other ink sets may not be as uniform from batch to batch.  I don't know if you could get away with that on other models/printers.
 
Tom Baker

Sam McCandless <samcc@...> wrote:
My guess is that if enough prospective customers for a given printer 
asked them to profile a new-to-ImagePrint combination of ink and 
paper, Colorbyte would at least try to do it. But I'd also talk to

<http://www.chromix.com/>

and

<http://www.profilecity.com/products/profile.html>

about their interest in doing it. Custom profiles for as many as ten 
ink-and-paper combinations can, for example, be as little as $70 
apiece at CHROMiX. How they would feel about more than one of us 
dividing up the ten among us, I don't know. But "one-offs" are as 
little as $99 each at both CHROMiX and ProfileCity. And that's for 
printer-specific profiles.

I'm not an expert, but I don't think profiles which are only 
model-specific would be a good value. And even for a given printer, 
I'd consider buying a new profile after buying ink or paper from a 
new batch of it - when paper and ink manufacturers or suppliers will 
help with that. Even when batch-to-batch differences are small, I'm 
not sure the printers themselves don't change over the course of 
their lifetime.
--
Sam


>Sam  -
>
>At last check Colorbyte Software (Imageprint makers) would only 
>profile Ultrachrome inks on the 2100/2200, 7600, 9600 printers.  It 
>seems that one should be able to profile other ink/paper 
>combinations using Imageprint, but they won't do it.  Maybe someone 
>on this list has already profiled this.  If so, on the Epsons one 
>profile should be very close on someone else's Epson of the same 
>model.
>
>Tom Baker
>
>Bernhard Ess <albatros-@...> wrote:
>Sam McCandless wrote:
>>>That's where Imageprint comes in.  It
>>>  is a RIP developed with the primary purpose of serving photographers
>>>  needs, both in terms of utility and image quality.
>
>Will the ImagePrint RIP also work with the MIS Ultra Chrome compatible color
>inks? Or if not, what would have to be done to make it work like the
>original Epson inks?
>
>>>  The RIP's are all more or less expensive. [snip]
>>
>>  Maybe Tom was, probably with good reason, thinking in a Microsoft
>>  Windows context when he wrote this, because Roy Harrington makes his
>>  Quad Tone Rip (QTR) available at no charge on
>>
>>  <http://harrington.com>
>>
>
>As I am on a PC I would have to get - next to Win XP - a Linux installation
>for printing. Would I have to get also a dedicated graphic applicaiton or
>could I just switch to Linux to print out my photos I edited under PS/ Win
>XP?
>
>regards, Bernie
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>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
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
>to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
>this same page.
>
>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.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>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
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
>to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
>this same page.
>
>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/


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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. 


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

If you are willing to spend some time up front calibrating your 
printer, ,materials and chemical process you can make fantastic 
contact prints from inkjet output and that means using a cheap 
printer and hassle-free dye based inks... isn't popular on this list, 
but seems like a good intermediate step that will give "real 
darkroom" looking prints

mark

PS  ummm, I'm too lazy to try it;)

...
> > >Cleaning printer heads just doesn't do it for me.
> > >So I guess my question is:  Is there a stock off the shelf 
printer with
> > >stock off the shelf ink supply in nifty little plug in modules 
that will
> > >allow me to come close to duplicating my dark room work assuming 
that I've
> > >done a good job in the image capture and photoshop manipulation.
> > >If the answer is no, I'm quite willing to go back to the dark 
room and wait.
...

> > > I'm simply amazed at the number of shots taken by digital
> > > photographers these days.

Personally a great incentive to have the discipline to take a good 
picture to begin with is that Photoshop time can go to virtually 
zero, and Photoshop labor can eat up profits REAL fast. Plus, if I do 
decide to use Photoshop for some reason on a technically correct 
photo it's easy, natural and quick.

Read this review of the HP 7060.  This looks like the way to go for 
plug-and-print b/w printing.  I am seriously considering getting one bsed on 
this review.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/HP%207960/page_1.htm

Lance Funderburk


> > > >Cleaning printer heads just doesn't do it for me.
> > > >So I guess my question is:  Is there a stock off the shelf
>printer with
> > > >stock off the shelf ink supply in nifty little plug in modules
>that will
> > > >allow me to come close to duplicating my dark room work assuming
>that I've
> > > >done a good job in the image capture and photoshop manipulation.
> > > >If the answer is no, I'm quite willing to go back to the dark
>room and wait.
>...
>
>
>
>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
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
>page.
>
>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/
>
>


Lance Funderburk
mailto:l_funderburk@...
http://userpages.acadia.net/lfunder/
A painting should not lead the eye to a place where there is nothing to see.
-Robert Henri-

_________________________________________________________________
From the hottest toys to tips on keeping fit this winter, you\ufffdll find a 
range of helpful holiday info here.  
http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx

Thanks Lance, I will check it out.
At 09:06 AM 12/1/03, you wrote:
>At 12:44 PM 12/1/03 +0000, you wrote:
> >Read this review of the HP 7060.  This looks like the way to go for
> >plug-and-print b/w printing.  I am seriously considering getting one bsed on
> >this review.
> >
> ><http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/HP%207960/page_1.htm>http:/ 
> /www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/HP%207960/page_1.htm
> >
> >Lance Funderburk
> >
> >
> > > > > >Cleaning printer heads just doesn't do it for me.
> > > > > >So I guess my question is:  Is there a stock off the shelf
> > >printer with
> > > > > >stock off the shelf ink supply in nifty little plug in modules
> > >that will
> > > > > >allow me to come close to duplicating my dark room work assuming
> > >that I've
> > > > > >done a good job in the image capture and photoshop manipulation.
> > > > > >If the answer is no, I'm quite willing to go back to the dark
> > >room and wait.
> > >...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >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>http://grou 
> ps.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > >
> > >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> > >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> > >page.
> > >
> > >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/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >Lance Funderburk
> >mailto:l_funderburk@...
> ><http://userpages.acadia.net/lfunder/>http://userpages.acadia.net/lfunder/
> >A painting should not lead the eye to a place where there is nothing to see.
> >-Robert Henri-
> >
> >
>
>Lance,
>
>The B/W HP prints I saw were OK but no better than Epson. The color was
>only fair but store samples are not too reliable. I wasn't able to check
>for metamerism.  For best results HP's special paper must be used with it.
>It's no good for me because it won't take user size panoramas.
>
>AZ
>
>Build a Lookaround!
>The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
>NOW SHIPPING
><http://www.panoramacamera.us>http://www.panoramacamera.us
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12chrn48k/M=266807.4061684.5387749.3957873/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/EXP=1070373705/A=1862004/R=1/*http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/yhxxxbre02200378ave/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/&time=1070287305604384>
>[]
>
>[]
>
>
>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>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
>page.
>
>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 
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Derek Hamlet
Victoria, B.C.
592-8590

At 12:44 PM 12/1/03 +0000, you wrote:
>Read this review of the HP 7060.  This looks like the way to go for
>plug-and-print b/w printing.  I am seriously considering getting one bsed on
>this review.
>
>http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/HP%207960/page_1.htm
>
>Lance Funderburk
>
>
> > > > >Cleaning printer heads just doesn't do it for me.
> > > > >So I guess my question is:  Is there a stock off the shelf
> >printer with
> > > > >stock off the shelf ink supply in nifty little plug in modules
> >that will
> > > > >allow me to come close to duplicating my dark room work assuming
> >that I've
> > > > >done a good job in the image capture and photoshop manipulation.
> > > > >If the answer is no, I'm quite willing to go back to the dark
> >room and wait.
> >...
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> >
> >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> >page.
> >
> >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/
> >
> >
>
>
>Lance Funderburk
>mailto:l_funderburk@...
>http://userpages.acadia.net/lfunder/
>A painting should not lead the eye to a place where there is nothing to see.
>-Robert Henri-
>
>

Lance,

The B/W HP prints I saw were OK but no better than Epson. The color was 
only fair but store samples are not too reliable. I wasn't able to check 
for metamerism.  For best results HP's special paper must be used with it. 
It's no good for me because it won't take user size panoramas.

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

You probably are right about these points.  I would be ok with HP's papers, 
and I like the idea of getting a new printhead with every new ink cartridge. 
  That would make the higher price worthwhile for me.  I have no interest in 
"tinkering" with the system, which many Epson ownere seem to do (no 
criticism intended--have fun).

Lance


>Lance,
>
>The B/W HP prints I saw were OK but no better than Epson. The color was
>only fair but store samples are not too reliable. I wasn't able to check
>for metamerism.  For best results HP's special paper must be used with it.
>It's no good for me because it won't take user size panoramas.
>
>AZ
>
>Build a Lookaround!
>The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
>NOW SHIPPING
>http://www.panoramacamera.us
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
>page.
>
>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/
>
>


Lance Funderburk
mailto:l_funderburk@...
http://userpages.acadia.net/lfunder/
A painting should not lead the eye to a place where there is nothing to see.
-Robert Henri-

_________________________________________________________________
From the hottest toys to tips on keeping fit this winter, you\ufffdll find a 
range of helpful holiday info here.  
http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx

There really doesn't seem to be any issues with the Epson printheads and OEM inks.  So, your question might be whether the 7960 or 2200 provide better out of the box images.  
 
Tom Baker

Lance Funderburk <l_funderburk@hotmail.com> wrote:
You probably are right about these points. I would be ok with HP's papers, 
and I like the idea of getting a new printhead with every new ink cartridge. 
That would make the higher price worthwhile for me. I have no interest in 
"tinkering" with the system, which many Epson ownere seem to do (no 
criticism intended--have fun).

Lance


>Lance,
>
>The B/W HP prints I saw were OK but no better than Epson. The color was
>only fair but store samples are not too reliable. I wasn't able to check
>for metamerism. For best results HP's special paper must be used with it.
>It's no good for me because it won't take user size panoramas.
>
>AZ
>
>Build a Lookaround!
>The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
>NOW SHIPPING
>http://www.panoramacamera.us
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
>page.
>
>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/
>
>


Lance Funderburk
mailto:l_funderburk@...
http://userpages.acadia.net/lfunder/
A painting should not lead the eye to a place where there is nothing to see.
-Robert Henri-

_________________________________________________________________
From the hottest toys to tips on keeping fit this winter, you�ll find a 
range of helpful holiday info here. 
http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx



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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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/ 



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

Actually, with a 14n you get appx 60 RAW images on a 1 gig card.

Robbe Gibson

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Frost [mailto:bobfrost@...] 
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 4:14 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: B&W vs. Color

Truman,

SNIP...

I only get 100 raw images on a 1GB card, so with bracketing that is only
33
pictures = 1 film. With images from a Canon 1Ds or Koday 14n you only
get
about 27 images on a 1 GB card - 9 with bracketing!! If you save tiffs,
you
get far less. Only with small jpegs do you get hundreds or thousands -
if
you can put up with the quality loss.

Bob Frost.

I have found in the past that while you get a new printhead with the
cartridge, you have to spend time(and ink) doing head alignments every
time you change a cartridge. Sometimes they're off a little, sometimes a
lot.

I would like to try a 7960 to see if the b/w is as good as some say.

Robbe

-----Original Message-----
From: Lance Funderburk [mailto:l_funderburk@...] 
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 11:02 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Moving from Chemical to Digital

You probably are right about these points.  I would be ok with HP's
papers, 
and I like the idea of getting a new printhead with every new ink
cartridge. 
  That would make the higher price worthwhile for me.  I have no
interest in 
"tinkering" with the system, which many Epson ownere seem to do (no 
criticism intended--have fun).

Lance

Robbe Gibson wrote:

>
>I would like to try a 7960 to see if the b/w is as good as some say.
>  
>

If it did at least 13 x19 prints, I probably would try it as well..

Anyone know if HP plans on offering a larger format printer that can use 
the B&W cartridge?


 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

Robbe  -
 
While that's true, the amount of ink in negligible.  I own a 13" HP, and that's not a problem.  In fact, I own 3 HP's.  The problem is the quality of the photographic output.  I don't own a 7960, so I can't speak for that.  But, there was absolutely no way to get a good b&w print from any of the HP's I have.  I was also put off by their "why are you bothering me with you photographic needs" attitude.  I still prefer the HP's for office applications.
 
Tom Baker

Robbe Gibson <videocinema@...> wrote:
I have found in the past that while you get a new printhead with the
cartridge, you have to spend time(and ink) doing head alignments every
time you change a cartridge. Sometimes they're off a little, sometimes a
lot.

I would like to try a 7960 to see if the b/w is as good as some say.

Robbe

-----Original Message-----
From: Lance Funderburk [mailto:l_funderburk@...] 
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 11:02 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Moving from Chemical to Digital

You probably are right about these points.  I would be ok with HP's
papers, 
and I like the idea of getting a new printhead with every new ink
cartridge. 
  That would make the higher price worthwhile for me.  I have no
interest in 
"tinkering" with the system, which many Epson ownere seem to do (no 
criticism intended--have fun).

Lance



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

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. 


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

-----Original Message-----

From: Tom Baker [mailto:tbaker1328@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:51 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Moving from Chemical to Digital

Robbe  -
 
While that's true, the amount of ink in negligible.  I own a 13" HP, and
that's not a problem.  In fact, I own 3 HP's.  The problem is the
quality of the photographic output.  I don't own a 7960, so I can't
speak for that.  But, there was absolutely no way to get a good b&w
print from any of the HP's I have.  I was also put off by their "why are
you bothering me with you photographic needs" attitude.  I still prefer
the HP's for office applications.
 
Tom Baker


When I was looking for a large format printer, I at least wanted to see
what HP had to offer. After going to the HP website, I got a call from a
salesman located about 80 miles away. (Yeah, I know that for some, 80
miles is a just a trip to the store, but when three Epson resellers are
less than 10 miles away....) He would demo a printer if I came to see
him. Not knowing whether he was an HP employee or what, I asked him if
there was a location that was closer for a demo. He replied that he was
not in the habit of disclosing his competitors, said to call him if
interested and hung up.  I bought a 7600.  Eight weeks later, I got a
call from HP following up on the website contact.

I guess the 7960 has a grey cartridge that's only used in that
printer.(so far)  Interesting concept.

I wonder what b/w prints look like out of a dye-sub printer?

Robbe