Digital BW, The Print

Greetings

     This is my first post to the group.  Most of the discussions 
seems to be about printers and paper.  Does anyone have any advice on 
which camera to use for B&W photography.  Does it matter?  I mean, 
are there camers that have a function for B&W?  If so, is it just as 
well do take color shots and turn them into B&W on a computer?

    I just got a Sony DSC-P10 Cyber-shot for Christmas, and I'm 
wondering if there is anything out there for under $600 that is 
better for low-light without a flash and B&W?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Jeff

> From: degan00115061 [mailto:degan@...]
>
>      This is my first post to the group.  Most of the discussions
> seems to be about printers and paper.  Does anyone have any advice on
> which camera to use for B&W photography.  Does it matter?  I mean,
> are there camers that have a function for B&W?  If so, is it just as
> well do take color shots and turn them into B&W on a computer?

You can greatly improve B&W shots if you shoot color, and use tools like
Photoshop's channel mixer to convert to B&W afterwards.

>     I just got a Sony DSC-P10 Cyber-shot for Christmas, and I'm
> wondering if there is anything out there for under $600 that is
> better for low-light without a flash and B&W?

I don't know the Sony's noise specs, but in general all digicams with small
sensors are fairly noisy. The cheapest digicam with a quiet sensor is
currently the Canon 300D.

--

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

Please do not understand me wrong, but this question is too complex to 
answer swiftly -
and I do not want to start another digital-film war.

There is a common misunderstanding among the amateur photographers 
switching to digital.
When a person wants to have good results from the 35mm film camera buys 
a Nikon F3,
Nikon N90s, Nikon F5, or Canon 1V spending a sum of $1000 plus on a body 
alone.
No one is satisfied with the Point-and-shoot camera since the results 
are not going to be great.

Now,  the same apply to the Digital cameras, with one adjustment:  price 
for the comparable
equipment is 2-5 times more than for the film camera.  
We can't talk about a $600 digital camera - in a way point-and-shoot 
camera with the
point-and-shoot optics and expect the panacea for our problems.

To answer the question asked in the original post - in this context - 
there is none.

I  bought 1Ds and a top glass spending... a lot. I use it on a regular 
basis for jobs.
 And I still shoot sometimes (I admit - not too often now) BW 120 film 
for myself and scan it.

For most of you guy - most of the times - the most efficient and quality 
oriented workflow will be
still shoot BW film on a quality camera and use even a Kodak-Pro-CD 
(72MB files) - instead
buying a crappy camera and struggle with the inferior output.

Just think about it.

Happy New Year for all of you.
Jack

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



degan00115061 wrote:

> Greetings
>
>      This is my first post to the group.  Most of the discussions
> seems to be about printers and paper.  Does anyone have any advice on
> which camera to use for B&W photography.  Does it matter?  I mean,
> are there camers that have a function for B&W?  If so, is it just as
> well do take color shots and turn them into B&W on a computer?
>
>     I just got a Sony DSC-P10 Cyber-shot for Christmas, and I'm
> wondering if there is anything out there for under $600 that is
> better for low-light without a flash and B&W?
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> Jeff
>
>

Hi Paul,

> You can greatly improve B&W shots if you shoot color, and use tools like
> Photoshop's channel mixer to convert to B&W afterwards.

That's purely subjective as to what you believe is "improv[ed]".  I strongly
disagree, and believe that the best B&W images one can get is to shoot MF
(Medium Format, my preference being Hasselblad) using specific films (My
preference being Tri-X and Plus-X), developed in a particular way (D-76
1:1), and scanned in grayscale (not RGB ;-) and printed them using Piezo...
But again, that's purely subjective...

Regards,

Austin

Austin,

Right on! Tri-X in 8x10, anyone? I do shoot digitally, too, but my good 'ole 500C/M will have to be pried from my dead hands someday! <g>

Alan Huntley

> That's purely subjective as to what you believe is "improv[ed]".  I strongly
> disagree, and believe that the best B&W images one can get is to shoot MF
> (Medium Format, my preference being Hasselblad) using specific films (My
> preference being Tri-X and Plus-X), developed in a particular way (D-76
> 1:1), and scanned in grayscale (not RGB ;-) and printed them using Piezo...
> But again, that's purely subjective...

A different perspective from a Digital B&W newbie...

You will probably be satisfied with the $600 digital camera for a while. 
Use it til you outgrow it or wear it out. In the beginning that Sony 
camera will not be the limiting factor in your pursuit of Digital B&W bliss.

I currently use the Nikon D100 (a 6 megapixel digital camera that shoots 
in color) and am completely satisfied with my B&W prints. I've printed 
18 x 12 prints on my Epson 1280 and couldn't be happier with the 
results. tonality, sharpness, etc are amazing.

Prior to my D100 I had a 3.2 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 990 that produced 
very sharp 8 x 10 prints. The color wasn't always great, but in a B&W 
world, who cares about that!

As you've probably observed on this forum, there are many different 
methods for converting color digital images to black and white, each 
have their merits and limits. My advice is to pick one (simple and 
cheap) horse and run with it.

Good Luck!

Mike

Alan.Huntley@... wrote:

>
> Austin,
>
> Right on! Tri-X in 8x10, anyone? I do shoot digitally, too, but my 
> good 'ole 500C/M will have to be pried from my dead hands someday! <g>
>
> Alan Huntley
>
> > That's purely subjective as to what you believe is "improv[ed]".  I 
> strongly
> > disagree, and believe that the best B&W images one can get is to 
> shoot MF
> > (Medium Format, my preference being Hasselblad) using specific films (My
> > preference being Tri-X and Plus-X), developed in a particular way (D-76
> > 1:1), and scanned in grayscale (not RGB ;-) and printed them using 
> Piezo...
> > But again, that's purely subjective...
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" 
> AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>        
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>        
>     * 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]

Hi, Jeff.  For low light, you're pretty much limited to a 35mm film camera
and a reasonably fast lens.  Some of my stuff is taken wide open, with
lenses designed for that, and hand-held at low shutter speeds with
rangefinder cameras designed for that.  But, I wouldn't worry about it too
much.  If you are new to photography, spend some time at the library
browsing books by the masters such as Paul Strand, Edward Weston, Walker
Evans, to name a few, and try to get in tune with the light you have to work
with.  The chances are that whatever you start with, if the bug really
bites, that equipment will be tomorrow's trade-in or door stop.  I remember
that when I started this hobby, I had a chance to work with Cole Weston for
a while.  He told me to throw away my 35 and get at least a 4x5 view camera,
so I did that.  I did that and upgraded my darkroom, and the pictures were
indeed better.  So, I thought, get an 8x10 camera and the pics would be even
better.  I did that and they were even better.  I had a chance to show some
to Ted Orland, Ansel Adam's first assistant.  He is a true gentlemen, and I
remember his comment, something like "I pronounce them technically perfect."
With what was unsaid, about that time I realized I was missing the point of
photography...it is a personal vision that doesn't have that much to do with
the equipment, within reason.  Anyway, that's enough bandwidth that may or
may not be addressing your inquiry.  Hope it helps a little -- just take
lots of photos and be selective in weeding them out.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

-----Original Message-----
From: degan00115061 [mailto:degan@...]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:08 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Good camera for B&W


Greetings

     This is my first post to the group.  Most of the discussions
seems to be about printers and paper.  Does anyone have any advice on
which camera to use for B&W photography.  Does it matter?  I mean,
are there camers that have a function for B&W?  If so, is it just as
well do take color shots and turn them into B&W on a computer?

    I just got a Sony DSC-P10 Cyber-shot for Christmas, and I'm
wondering if there is anything out there for under $600 that is
better for low-light without a flash and B&W?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Jeff




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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

Oh, you *would* ask a "third-rail" question as your first in this 
group! ;-)

IMO, the first thing to understand is that black-and-white 
photography is *not* merely "the absence of color". I'll go out on 
a limb and assume your interest in b/w comes from having seen 
some very nice b/w prints, either in an exhibit or in book form.  If 
so, it's a fair bet that those photographs originated on 
black-and-white film. Nowadays, of course, there's more than 
one way to get to a b/w print, and each "way" can result in a 
subjectively satisfying print. BUT, there's a learning curve 
involved, whichver way you go.

My preferred "way" is with some form of black-and-white film. But 
you can try and make a go of it with your CyberShot, and I would 
encourage you to experiment with it (you just got it, after all - have 
fun!). Understand, however, that there will be certain limitations 
imposed by your camera (the "default" for 99.95% of all digital 
cameras is color photography) . The only way to discover these 
limitations, of course, is to get out there with your camera and try. 
Dealing with the limitations of a given medium can lead to some 
interesting results.

From the digerati I know, the bar for "good" b/w conversions from 
a digital camera pretty much starts with Canon's 10D, which is 
about double the cost you mention in your post. But I would 
encourage you t experiment with the Sony first, to get a feel for 
the all-ditial workflow, and take it from there.

- Barrett

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"degan00115061" <degan@c...> wrote:

> Greetings
> 
>This is my first post to the group.  Most of the discussions 
>seems to be about printers and paper.  Does anyone have any 
>advice on which camera to use for B&W photography.  Does it 
>matter?  I mean, are there camers that have a function for 
>B&W?  If so, is it just as well do take color shots and turn them 
>into B&W on a computer?
> 
> I just got a Sony DSC-P10 Cyber-shot for Christmas, and I'm 
> wondering if there is anything out there for under $600 that is 
> better for low-light without a flash and B&W?
> 
> Any advice would be appreciated.
> 
> Jeff

GREAT camera for B+W:   Rolleiflex 3.5E and Kodak Tri-X film.   For many 
examples, visit my photographs at www.mcnew.net.

Digital camera for B+W?   They have word in Brooklyn for that:   
Fuhgeddaboutit.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net


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

Hi Jeff and welcome!

It is a bit more than you want to spend, but the Canon Digital Rebel 
body costs ~$730 and the Canon 50mm f1.8 will only add about $60 
more.  This would be an excellent starter digital camera for b&w and 
will perform great up to ISO 400.  The Rebel will match the 10D in 
image quality.

mark

...
> From the digerati I know, the bar for "good" b/w conversions from 
> a digital camera pretty much starts with Canon's 10D, which is 
> about double the cost you mention in your post. But I would 
> encourage you t experiment with the Sony first, to get a feel for 
> the all-ditial workflow, and take it from there.
...
> >This is my first post to the group.  Most of the discussions 
> >seems to be about printers and paper.  Does anyone have any 
> >advice on which camera to use for B&W photography.  Does it 
> >matter?  I mean, are there camers that have a function for 
> >B&W?  If so, is it just as well do take color shots and turn them 
> >into B&W on a computer?
> > 
> > I just got a Sony DSC-P10 Cyber-shot for Christmas, and I'm 
> > wondering if there is anything out there for under $600 that is 
> > better for low-light without a flash and B&W?
> > 
> > Any advice would be appreciated.
...

Don't necessarily accept Tri-x as the holy grail.  There are a lot of good film/developer combinations out there, depending on your needs/tastes.
 
I just got a Sony DSC-F828.  The color is really nice.  I working on the b&w now.  I've made a couple of really good b&w prints (fairly big) from the 1Ds (which I don't own).  The Sony, with 8m/pixels looks promising.  My benchmark will be the 1Ds, not that I expect a $1000 camera to match a $7000+ set up, but I'll set my standards high anyway.
 
Tom Baker

Mark Hahn <markhahn2000@...> wrote:
Hi Jeff and welcome!

It is a bit more than you want to spend, but the Canon Digital Rebel 
body costs ~$730 and the Canon 50mm f1.8 will only add about $60 
more.  This would be an excellent starter digital camera for b&w and 
will perform great up to ISO 400.  The Rebel will match the 10D in 
image quality.

mark

...
> From the digerati I know, the bar for "good" b/w conversions from 
> a digital camera pretty much starts with Canon's 10D, which is 
> about double the cost you mention in your post. But I would 
> encourage you t experiment with the Sony first, to get a feel for 
> the all-ditial workflow, and take it from there.
...
> >This is my first post to the group.  Most of the discussions 
> >seems to be about printers and paper.  Does anyone have any 
> >advice on which camera to use for B&W photography.  Does it 
> >matter?  I mean, are there camers that have a function for 
> >B&W?  If so, is it just as well do take color shots and turn them 
> >into B&W on a computer?
> > 
> > I just got a Sony DSC-P10 Cyber-shot for Christmas, and I'm 
> > wondering if there is anything out there for under $600 that is 
> > better for low-light without a flash and B&W?
> > 
> > Any advice would be appreciated.
...



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

   To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
  
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
   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: <sandersm@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 3:48 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Good camera for B&W


GREAT camera for B+W:   Rolleiflex 3.5E and Kodak Tri-X film.
For many
examples, visit my photographs at www.mcnew.net.

Digital camera for B+W?   They have word in Brooklyn for that:
Fuhgeddaboutit.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net


I like to use my MF folders. An Iskra 6x6 and a modified Monitor
6x9. Smaller than a 35 mm SLR and a lot of square inches of film.
My modified Polaroid 110A with 665 film is the slower one with
even more film space. Though I do have a Nikon 8000 scanner, one
could use the Epson 3200 (that I also have) as well for smaller
prints. In price and print quality the combination of a good MF
camera and the Epson is hard to beat. You have to find a method
to use the 3200 at its best. This setup will fulfill my modest
amateur needs till fullframe digital is affordable. As I'm a
printer by profession the scanners that I have are a bit out of
proportion to the camera equipment.

Ernst

Ernst Dinkla writes:

"I like to use my MF folders. An Iskra 6x6 and a modified Monitor
6x9. Smaller than a 35 mm SLR and a lot of square inches of film.
My modified Polaroid 110A with 665 film is the slower one with
even more film space. Though I do have a Nikon 8000 scanner, one
could use the Epson 3200 (that I also have) as well for smaller
prints. In price and print quality the combination of a good MF
camera and the Epson is hard to beat."

Ernst, you and I must be twins separated at birth.   I agree entirely with 
you here.   I recommended the Rolleiflex because it has great optics, is really 
easy to focus with its big viewfinder, and is a beautiful and an elegant tool. 
  And it can be had in one model or another surprisingly cheaply -- I just 
bought a 3.5 MX-EVS model in good condition on eBay for $155.   

But my format of choice, like yours, is 6x9 roll film.   I just get there a 
different way.   I have a Sinar Norma 4x5 view camera, to which I've mounted an 
old 8.5" Kodak Commercial Ektar lens and a Graflex 6x9 roll film holder.   
The 6x9 format, the Ektar lens and the movements afforded by the Sinar (which I 
am only now coming to use to great effect in portraiture) blow me away.   
Here's an example:

http://www.pbase.com/image/24625958

And another:

http://www.pbase.com/image/24606005

I'm with you on scanners as well.   I use a Microtek 120tf for most of my MF 
scanning -- it does a good job on traditional b+w emulsions like Tri-X.   But 
I too also have an Epson 3200 and I agree that it is capable of tremendously 
good scans with a little learning.   The "problem" with the 3200 is that its 
automated routines are too good, and a novice scanner may not appreciate the 
extent to which he/she can control the 3200's output -- I know that was true in 
my case, when I first started with it.

Someone said (advocating digital) that Tri-X is not the holy grail.   True, 
but not in the way the poster meant.   There are many really good film 
emulsions out there besides Tri-X, each with its own strenths and weaknesses.   In 
addition to the usual alternatives from Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, there are a number 
of films from central Europe that are essentially 1940s emulsions -- 
traditionally formulated with high silver content.   They have their own look and 
texture.   Go to www.jandcphotography.com or www.frugalphotographer.com and see 
their offering of Efke and Classic Pan films, among others.   

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net


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

Does anyone know why we don't have a setting in our digital camera's that
would make the senor measure only luminosity? Am I wrong to think that for
B&W imaging that would be a very smooth, noise free image? Couldn't that be
a program feature? BTW I don't mean the feature in some cameras that
converts the images to B&W as an effect, but to genuinely turn off the
color. 

Wendel

The sensors only measure intensity. To get color color filters are 
overlayed over the sensor and data processing is used to fill in the 
colors between the pixels of the same color. To measure full spectral 
intensity you would have to remove the filter array.

However, wouldn't it be nice if someone made a B&W digitical camera - 
then 6 megapixesls would rally be six megapixels. The processing would 
be minized since you would not need to worry much about white balance 
(could use a filter to do that).  A true B&W digital camera.

Truman

Wendel White wrote:

> Does anyone know why we don't have a setting in our digital camera's that
> would make the senor measure only luminosity? Am I wrong to think that for
> B&W imaging that would be a very smooth, noise free image? Couldn't 
> that be
> a program feature? BTW I don't mean the feature in some cameras that
> converts the images to B&W as an effect, but to genuinely turn off the
> color.
>
> Wendel
>

Some very sage advice. After all a sharply conceived image on a point 
shoot is better than a poorly concieved image on a 4x5.  It is about the 
image. Get what what you can and grow with it.

As far as digital cameras, I am not sure they ever asked a photographer 
how they wanted the ergonomics on these things. They drive me crazy. 
Give me a focusing ring, a zoom ring and an aperture ring and film speed 
dial an light meter display in the viewfinder that can use to balance 
the exposure and get rid of all the damn buttons, wheels and toggles.

Truman

Alan Zinn wrote:

>
>
> Jeff,
>
>
> The thing to do is conceive of pictures that are aesthetically in synch
> with the mode in which they are made. Use your Sony to push the limits of
> what can be done with it and  match your  image-making skills to that.  I
> see more interesting work done with phone cams than Ansel wannabes and
> their Deardorfs.
> Comparing 35mm with TX to a modestly-endowed digital cam isn't much of a
> point either - just as pointless as comparing the former with sheet film
> cameras.
>
> I have to add that I got one of those damn digital cams for Xmas and it's
> making me crazy. There are "quirks", not limitations to overcome and the
> process of making pictures has to be completely re-learned.
>
> AZ
>
> Build a Lookaround!
> The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
> NOW SHIPPING
> http://www.panoramacamera.us
>
>

Well thanks for the reply - it is a shame. I certainly understand that it
would be a small market but it would be nice. I would pay extra to have an
EOS 1Ds-BW or an EOS 10D-BW

Wendel

> From: Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@...>
> 
> The sensors only measure intensity. To get color color filters are
> overlayed over the sensor and data processing is used to fill in the
> colors between the pixels of the same color. To measure full spectral
> intensity you would have to remove the filter array.
> 
> However, wouldn't it be nice if someone made a B&W digitical camera -
> then 6 megapixesls would rally be six megapixels. The processing would
> be minized since you would not need to worry much about white balance
> (could use a filter to do that).  A true B&W digital camera.
> 
> Truman
>

> Comparing 35mm with TX to a modestly-endowed digital cam isn't much of a
> point either - just as pointless as comparing the former with sheet film
> cameras.

To compare them in an absolute sense (which is "better"), if of course
futile, as everyone's concerns/requirement/objectives are simply different.
But, if you know what specific aspects you are comparing, and for what
purpose...a lot can be garnered from comparisons as you state.
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a tool, as it applies to your
needs, can only help you understand how well that tool will suit *you*.

Regards,

Austin

Truman,

> However, wouldn't it be nice if someone made a B&W digitical camera -
> then 6 megapixesls would rally be six megapixels. The processing would
> be minized since you would not need to worry much about white balance
> (could use a filter to do that).  A true B&W digital camera.

There were a couple of Kodak digital cameras that were monochrome, but I
don't believe they went as high as 6M pixels.  The Leaf Lumina is a 6M pixel
(true 6M pixels, as it is a scanning camera), and does grayscale...but your
subjects have to stand very still ;-)  The images are superb from it.  I
also have a 7k scanning back for my Hasselblad, and in monochrome mode, the
images are nothing less than superb...but it's only good for studio work, as
it's a scanner.

I agree, I wish someone made their Bayer filters so they were removable.
The filters are separate from the actual sensor arrays, they are not
built-in to the sensor array, they are on top of it, and therefore *could*
be removed (or simply replaced with a neutral density filter) if someone
really wanted to make the effort...but the issue is the software wouldn't
know how to deal with it.

Regards,

Austin

But just thing of it -

a. higher sensivity (all the sensor elements would see all the light)
b. true resolution not some trumped up estimate based on interpolation
c. less noise at the same ISO (see a. )
d. more artistic control through the use of filters
e. much less in camera S/W and processor complexity
f.. fewer knock down drag out fist fights on the forum over RGB to B&W 
conversion ;-).

Truman


Austin Franklin wrote:

> Truman,
>
> > However, wouldn't it be nice if someone made a B&W digitical camera -
> > then 6 megapixesls would rally be six megapixels. The processing would
> > be minized since you would not need to worry much about white balance
> > (could use a filter to do that).  A true B&W digital camera.
>
> There were a couple of Kodak digital cameras that were monochrome, but I
> don't believe they went as high as 6M pixels.  The Leaf Lumina is a 6M 
> pixel
> (true 6M pixels, as it is a scanning camera), and does grayscale...but 
> your
> subjects have to stand very still ;-)  The images are superb from it.  I
> also have a 7k scanning back for my Hasselblad, and in monochrome 
> mode, the
> images are nothing less than superb...but it's only good for studio 
> work, as
> it's a scanner.
>
> I agree, I wish someone made their Bayer filters so they were removable.
> The filters are separate from the actual sensor arrays, they are not
> built-in to the sensor array, they are on top of it, and therefore *could*
> be removed (or simply replaced with a neutral density filter) if someone
> really wanted to make the effort...but the issue is the software wouldn't
> know how to deal with it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>

Truman,

I DO *think* about it...quite often.  It's been a "pet" project of mine to
do for quite a few years now, but I've been just too busy to really put any
time into it.  I went as far as having a full frame 6cm x 6cm sensor design
specified (6k x 6k sensor elements) and quoted.  It wasn't *that* cost
prohibitive, though, in all honesty, I doubt that I'd make any money on
it...I really just wanted one for my self ;-)

Regards,

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:48 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Digital B&W Camera [Was: Good camera for
> B&W]
>
>
> But just thing of it -
>
> a. higher sensivity (all the sensor elements would see all the light)
> b. true resolution not some trumped up estimate based on interpolation
> c. less noise at the same ISO (see a. )
> d. more artistic control through the use of filters
> e. much less in camera S/W and processor complexity
> f.. fewer knock down drag out fist fights on the forum over RGB to B&W
> conversion ;-).
>
> Truman
>
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > Truman,
> >
> > > However, wouldn't it be nice if someone made a B&W digitical camera -
> > > then 6 megapixesls would rally be six megapixels. The processing would
> > > be minized since you would not need to worry much about white balance
> > > (could use a filter to do that).  A true B&W digital camera.
> >
> > There were a couple of Kodak digital cameras that were monochrome, but I
> > don't believe they went as high as 6M pixels.  The Leaf Lumina is a 6M
> > pixel
> > (true 6M pixels, as it is a scanning camera), and does grayscale...but
> > your
> > subjects have to stand very still ;-)  The images are superb from it.  I
> > also have a 7k scanning back for my Hasselblad, and in monochrome
> > mode, the
> > images are nothing less than superb...but it's only good for studio
> > work, as
> > it's a scanner.
> >
> > I agree, I wish someone made their Bayer filters so they were removable.
> > The filters are separate from the actual sensor arrays, they are not
> > built-in to the sensor array, they are on top of it, and
> therefore *could*
> > be removed (or simply replaced with a neutral density filter) if someone
> > really wanted to make the effort...but the issue is the
> software wouldn't
> > know how to deal with it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
> digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts
> may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the
> group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and
> Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
> THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
> SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
> SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR
> OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
> INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR
> DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER
> RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

At 01:44 AM 1/6/04 +0000, you wrote:
>Oh, you *would* ask a "third-rail" question as your first in this
>group! ;-)
>
>IMO, the first thing to understand is that black-and-white
>photography is *not* merely "the absence of color". I'll go out on
>a limb and assume your interest in b/w comes from having seen
>some very nice b/w prints, either in an exhibit or in book form.  If
>so, it's a fair bet that those photographs originated on
>black-and-white film. Nowadays, of course, there's more than
>one way to get to a b/w print, and each "way" can result in a
>subjectively satisfying print. BUT, there's a learning curve
>involved, whichver way you go.
>
>My preferred "way" is with some form of black-and-white film. But
>you can try and make a go of it with your CyberShot, and I would
>encourage you to experiment with it (you just got it, after all - have
>fun!). Understand, however, that there will be certain limitations
>imposed by your camera (the "default" for 99.95% of all digital
>cameras is color photography) . The only way to discover these
>limitations, of course, is to get out there with your camera and try.
>Dealing with the limitations of a given medium can lead to some
>interesting results.
>
> >From the digerati I know, the bar for "good" b/w conversions from
>a digital camera pretty much starts with Canon's 10D, which is
>about double the cost you mention in your post. But I would
>encourage you t experiment with the Sony first, to get a feel for
>the all-ditial workflow, and take it from there.
>
>- Barrett
>
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
>"degan00115061" <degan@c...> wrote:
> > Greetings
> >
> >This is my first post to the group.  Most of the discussions
> >seems to be about printers and paper.  Does anyone have any
> >advice on which camera to use for B&W photography.  Does it
> >matter?  I mean, are there camers that have a function for
> >B&W?  If so, is it just as well do take color shots and turn them
> >into B&W on a computer?
> >
> > I just got a Sony DSC-P10 Cyber-shot for Christmas, and I'm
> > wondering if there is anything out there for under $600 that is
> > better for low-light without a flash and B&W?
> >
> > Any advice would be appreciated.
> >
> > Jeff

Jeff,

This kind of question is asked over and over and it usually gets the same 
series of  replies.  Nobody has a clue about your aesthetic desires or 
experience but is full of advise.

So...  my general advise to anyone is that it is a mistake to model a 
photographic style on a type of image that can only be gotten with a 
specific format or technical capability.  Equally aggravating to me are the 
people who insist that pictures made without sheet film or $2K pro cameras 
are some kind of serious compromise.

The thing to do is conceive of pictures that are aesthetically in synch 
with the mode in which they are made. Use your Sony to push the limits of 
what can be done with it and  match your  image-making skills to that.  I 
see more interesting work done with phone cams than Ansel wannabes and 
their Deardorfs.
Comparing 35mm with TX to a modestly-endowed digital cam isn't much of a 
point either - just as pointless as comparing the former with sheet film 
cameras.

I have to add that I got one of those damn digital cams for Xmas and it's 
making me crazy. There are "quirks", not limitations to overcome and the 
process of making pictures has to be completely re-learned.

AZ

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

This guy will perform major surgery on your camera for a fee.  
Apparently, he removes the bayer filter on the sensor and replaces the 
IR cut filter (in front of the sensor on a D30 and D60) with a #87 IR 
pass filter to leave you with an IR only B&W camera.  I would think 
that the filter replacement could also be with a neutral density 
filter, but I really don't know.  No firmware mods, so I'm not sure how 
you go about setting exposure, etc.
http://www.irdigital.net/index.html

Carl

On Tuesday, January 6, 2004, at 12:05  PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> Truman,
>
>> However, wouldn't it be nice if someone made a B&W digitical camera -
>> then 6 megapixesls would rally be six megapixels. The processing would
>> be minized since you would not need to worry much about white balance
>> (could use a filter to do that).  A true B&W digital camera.
>
> There were a couple of Kodak digital cameras that were monochrome, but 
> I
> don't believe they went as high as 6M pixels.  The Leaf Lumina is a 6M 
> pixel
> (true 6M pixels, as it is a scanning camera), and does grayscale...but 
> your
> subjects have to stand very still ;-)  The images are superb from it.  
> I
> also have a 7k scanning back for my Hasselblad, and in monochrome 
> mode, the
> images are nothing less than superb...but it's only good for studio 
> work, as
> it's a scanner.
>
> I agree, I wish someone made their Bayer filters so they were 
> removable.
> The filters are separate from the actual sensor arrays, they are not
> built-in to the sensor array, they are on top of it, and therefore 
> *could*
> be removed (or simply replaced with a neutral density filter) if 
> someone
> really wanted to make the effort...but the issue is the software 
> wouldn't
> know how to deal with it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin

> From: Wendel White [mailto:wendel@...]
>
> Does anyone know why we don't have a setting in our digital camera's that
> would make the senor measure only luminosity? Am I wrong to think that for
> B&W imaging that would be a very smooth, noise free image?
> Couldn't that be
> a program feature? BTW I don't mean the feature in some cameras that
> converts the images to B&W as an effect, but to genuinely turn off the
> color.

Because the individual sensors have color filters over them. You can't just
"turn them off."

Besides, you can often get useful aesthetic effects by controlling how the
colors are blended after the fact.

--

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

> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
>
> I agree, I wish someone made their Bayer filters so they were removable.
> The filters are separate from the actual sensor arrays, they are not
> built-in to the sensor array, they are on top of it, and therefore *could*
> be removed (or simply replaced with a neutral density filter) if someone
> really wanted to make the effort...but the issue is the software wouldn't
> know how to deal with it.

No, the color filters are part of the chip, as the sensors are only a few
microns across, and the filter alignment needs to be essentially perfect.
You could never do that with a removable sensor. The anti-alias and IR
filter is what's mounted above the chip.

--

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

I think you will do much better with a Minolta Scan Dual II or III 
for b&w 35mm, but the Epson flatbeds do very well with medium and 
large format... ok, I also thought the thread was on digital b&w, but 
if we go into film a great starter 35mm camera would be one of the 
Rebels with some good primes... then when you move into a Canon DSLR 
you will already have the lenses and wouldn't have spent too much on 
the film camera that will go into disuse.  All the Rebel cameras are 
great bargains and will do more than most people ever need (ok, they 
won't impress anyone, but if you only show them your photos...).  For 
larger formats the Century (medium format) and Speed Graphics (4x5") 
are great fun... and if you add a polaroid back you can shoot the 
incredible and hassle-free Type 55 negative film for stunning 
traditional photos from grainless negatives.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a... 
wrote:
> Ernst Dinkla writes:
> 
> "I like to use my MF folders. An Iskra 6x6 and a modified Monitor
> 6x9. Smaller than a 35 mm SLR and a lot of square inches of film.
> My modified Polaroid 110A with 665 film is the slower one with
> even more film space. Though I do have a Nikon 8000 scanner, one
> could use the Epson 3200 (that I also have) as well for smaller
> prints. In price and print quality the combination of a good MF
> camera and the Epson is hard to beat."
> 
> Ernst, you and I must be twins separated at birth.   I agree 
entirely with 
> you here.   I recommended the Rolleiflex because it has great 
optics, is really 
> easy to focus with its big viewfinder, and is a beautiful and an 
elegant tool. 
>   And it can be had in one model or another surprisingly cheaply -- 
I just 
> bought a 3.5 MX-EVS model in good condition on eBay for $155.   
> 
> But my format of choice, like yours, is 6x9 roll film.   I just get 
there a 
> different way.   I have a Sinar Norma 4x5 view camera, to which 
I've mounted an 
> old 8.5" Kodak Commercial Ektar lens and a Graflex 6x9 roll film 
holder.   
> The 6x9 format, the Ektar lens and the movements afforded by the 
Sinar (which I 
> am only now coming to use to great effect in portraiture) blow me 
away.   
> Here's an example:
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/image/24625958
> 
> And another:
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/image/24606005
> 
> I'm with you on scanners as well.   I use a Microtek 120tf for most 
of my MF 
> scanning -- it does a good job on traditional b+w emulsions like 
Tri-X.   But 
> I too also have an Epson 3200 and I agree that it is capable of 
tremendously 
> good scans with a little learning.   The "problem" with the 3200 is 
that its 
> automated routines are too good, and a novice scanner may not 
appreciate the 
> extent to which he/she can control the 3200's output -- I know that 
was true in 
> my case, when I first started with it.
> 
> Someone said (advocating digital) that Tri-X is not the holy 
grail.   True, 
> but not in the way the poster meant.   There are many really good 
film 
> emulsions out there besides Tri-X, each with its own strenths and 
weaknesses.   In 
> addition to the usual alternatives from Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, there 
are a number 
> of films from central Europe that are essentially 1940s emulsions --
 
> traditionally formulated with high silver content.   They have 
their own look and 
> texture.   Go to www.jandcphotography.com or 
www.frugalphotographer.com and see 

> their offering of Efke and Classic Pan films, among others.   
> 
> Sanders McNew
> www.mcnew.net
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Right, but that control comes at the cost of interpolation. I would gladly
give up that control (which I never had when BW film was in the camera), for
a panchromatic monochrome sensor that did not need to interpolate. I would
dust off my yellow filter and be quite happy. Austin has already told use
how nice the true BW sensors were that he has worked with. I just want that
in a normal, digital SLR.

Wendel

> Because the individual sensors have color filters over them. You can't just
> "turn them off."
> 
> Besides, you can often get useful aesthetic effects by controlling how the
> colors are blended after the fact.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Hi Paul,

> > I agree, I wish someone made their Bayer filters so they were removable.
> > The filters are separate from the actual sensor arrays, they are not
> > built-in to the sensor array, they are on top of it, and
> therefore *could*
> > be removed (or simply replaced with a neutral density filter) if someone
> > really wanted to make the effort...but the issue is the
> software wouldn't
> > know how to deal with it.
>
> No, the color filters are part of the chip, as the sensors are only a few
> microns across, and the filter alignment needs to be essentially perfect.
> You could never do that with a removable sensor. The anti-alias and IR
> filter is what's mounted above the chip.

Having designed a few Bayer pattern imaging devices, with the sensor arrays
I've worked with, the color filter is in fact a separate piece.  That
doesn't not mean it isn't glued on, but it is in fact a separate piece, and
can be removed.

Also, if they weren't removable, then how is this guy able to do what he
does:

http://www.irdigital.net/index.html

Also, check the Kodak (or any other sensor manufacturer's) web site, and
take a look at the full frame (not meaning full film frame, but as opposed
to linear, or interline) sensor spec sheets, such as the KAF-6303E, and the
KAF-16801E etc.  I haven't looked at the Kodak web site in a while, but I'm
not sure I've seen one made by Kodak that includes the Bayer filter.  Some
companies, like FillFactory, allow you to specify what filter you want
(Bayer RGB, RGB Diagonal or B&W) and they apply the filter for you.

Regards,

Austin

> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
>
> Having designed a few Bayer pattern imaging devices, with the
> sensor arrays
> I've worked with, the color filter is in fact a separate piece.  That
> doesn't not mean it isn't glued on, but it is in fact a separate
> piece, and
> can be removed.
>
> Also, if they weren't removable, then how is this guy able to do what he
> does:
>
> http://www.irdigital.net/index.html

I've seen diagrams that imply that they deposit dyes right on the chips, but
I suppose it's possible that some chips are made differently from others.
The datasheet for the Sony ICX282AQ, which is the chip used in my Minolta
DiMage 7, clearly says "R, G, B primary color mosaic filters on chip". When
you're dealing with the 7 micron sensors of the 10D (or the 3.4u sensors in
the DiMage 7), I don't see how they could align a mechanical assembly
accurately enough across the whole chip. As to removing the filters, it
wouldn't surprise me if that guy has come up with a way of removing the dyes
chemically, since the underlying chip probably has glass passivation over
it.

--

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

Kodak used to make IR digital cameras:

http://snipurl.com/3om9

Jon

> This guy will perform major surgery on your camera for a fee.
> Apparently, he removes the bayer filter on the sensor and replaces the
> IR cut filter (in front of the sensor on a D30 and D60) with a #87 IR
> pass filter to leave you with an IR only B&W camera.  I would think
> that the filter replacement could also be with a neutral density
> filter, but I really don't know.  No firmware mods, so I'm not sure how
> you go about setting exposure, etc.
> http://www.irdigital.net/index.html
> 
> Carl

On Tuesday, January 6, 2004, at 03:25  PM, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

> I don't see how they could align a mechanical assembly
> accurately enough across the whole chip.

It has been done. I think that the old Carnival camera back which was a 
combination 3 shot/1 shot back actually moved the filters over the chip 
in three shot mode. Unlike the Leaf digital back of that era that used 
a rotating pie plate sized filter wheel in front of the lens.

cort

--
Cort Anderson
Training Wheels, llc
www.trwheels.com
620-488-2960
620-488-3196 fax

Hi Cort,

> It has been done. I think that the old Carnival camera back which was a
> combination 3 shot/1 shot back actually moved the filters over the chip
> in three shot mode.

But those filters are one color each, where the Bayer pattern is a grid of
three colors...so it's not really the same thing.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Paul,

> I've seen diagrams that imply that they deposit dyes right on the
> chips...

I haven't seen any of those, but that certainly is possible.  My guess is
that those are probably interline sensors.

> but
> I suppose it's possible that some chips are made differently from others.

As I said, I KNOW the Bayer filter is removable on the sensors I've used...

> The datasheet for the Sony ICX282AQ, which is the chip used in my Minolta
> DiMage 7, clearly says "R, G, B primary color mosaic filters on
> chip".

Two things strike me about that...one, that the go out of their way to
mention "on chip", which to me implies that others aren't "on chip"...what
ever "on chip" means...it could simply mean cemented onto the package.  The
sensors are made up of quite a few components.  They contain the actual chip
die, the carrier (typically ceramic simply due to stability of the
material), plus the wires that bond the die to the carrier.  Then, there is
a cover over the open side of the chip...so that's four physically separate
components for a rather simple imaging sensor.  So, on-chip, may simply mean
it's glued to the carrier...

> When
> you're dealing with the 7 micron sensors of the 10D (or the 3.4u
> sensors in
> the DiMage 7), I don't see how they could align a mechanical assembly
> accurately enough across the whole chip.

I never asked...but I'd simply have targets (typically called fiducials) on
the die, and optically place the filter aligning it with the targets.  I've
seen this done with many other types of technologies that require precision
alignment.  Think about how the die is made coplanar with the "film
plane"...with a device that's glued into a carrier, and a carrier that is
typically simply soldered onto a PCB...which is how a typical CCD/CMOS full
frame image sensor is mounted into the camera.

> As to removing the filters, it
> wouldn't surprise me if that guy has come up with a way of
> removing the dyes
> chemically, since the underlying chip probably has glass passivation over
> it.

We don't know if the sensors used in the cameras he claims he "modifies" are
die or he can actually remove the filter.  If you find out, please let me
know.  He says his process is "patented", but many people say that as a
simply false claim...but I could hardly see how popping a Bayer pattern
filter off would be patented, unless he developed a special "tool/procedure"
to do it...but personally, I've just used an Xacto knife, but I've only done
it to large sensors.

Regards,

Austin

I don't know...the pic on his website didn't look all that IR to me.  Kind
of weak foliage, skin tones instead of marble, etc.  I seem to remember
someone who would modify consumer cameras by removing the IR blocking
filter, like my Olympus C-4000, for which I have a #87 and R72 filter.  Does
that ring a bell?  Thanks.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Schofield [mailto:scho@...]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:14 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Digital B&W Camera [Was: Good camera for
B&W]


This guy will perform major surgery on your camera for a fee.
Apparently, he removes the bayer filter on the sensor and replaces the
IR cut filter (in front of the sensor on a D30 and D60) with a #87 IR
pass filter to leave you with an IR only B&W camera.  I would think
that the filter replacement could also be with a neutral density
filter, but I really don't know.  No firmware mods, so I'm not sure how
you go about setting exposure, etc.
http://www.irdigital.net/index.html

Carl

On Tuesday, January 6, 2004, at 12:05  PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> Truman,
>
>> However, wouldn't it be nice if someone made a B&W digitical camera -
>> then 6 megapixesls would rally be six megapixels. The processing would
>> be minized since you would not need to worry much about white balance
>> (could use a filter to do that).  A true B&W digital camera.
>
> There were a couple of Kodak digital cameras that were monochrome, but
> I
> don't believe they went as high as 6M pixels.  The Leaf Lumina is a 6M
> pixel
> (true 6M pixels, as it is a scanning camera), and does grayscale...but
> your
> subjects have to stand very still ;-)  The images are superb from it.
> I
> also have a 7k scanning back for my Hasselblad, and in monochrome
> mode, the
> images are nothing less than superb...but it's only good for studio
> work, as
> it's a scanner.
>
> I agree, I wish someone made their Bayer filters so they were
> removable.
> The filters are separate from the actual sensor arrays, they are not
> built-in to the sensor array, they are on top of it, and therefore
> *could*
> be removed (or simply replaced with a neutral density filter) if
> someone
> really wanted to make the effort...but the issue is the software
> wouldn't
> know how to deal with it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin


Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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

I agree that the first page image does not look very "IR like" except 
that it looks as though the couple may have been wearing sunglasses 
(which IR penetrates), but also look at the sample image by George Lepp 
on this page of the site:
http://www.irdigital.net/_wsn/page3.html
Highlights are blown out, but definitely an IR image.

On Tuesday, January 6, 2004, at 07:57  PM, Ken Carney wrote:

> I don't know...the pic on his website didn't look all that IR to me.  
> Kind
> of weak foliage, skin tones instead of marble, etc.  I seem to remember
> someone who would modify consumer cameras by removing the IR blocking
> filter, like my Olympus C-4000, for which I have a #87 and R72 filter. 
>  Does
> that ring a bell?  Thanks.
>
> Regards,
>
>   --Ken Carney
>     www.kencarney.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Schofield [mailto:scho@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:14 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Digital B&W Camera [Was: Good camera for
> B&W]
>
>
> This guy will perform major surgery on your camera for a fee.
> Apparently, he removes the bayer filter on the sensor and replaces the
> IR cut filter (in front of the sensor on a D30 and D60) with a #87 IR
> pass filter to leave you with an IR only B&W camera.  I would think
> that the filter replacement could also be with a neutral density
> filter, but I really don't know.  No firmware mods, so I'm not sure how
> you go about setting exposure, etc.
> http://www.irdigital.net/index.html
>
> Carl
>
> On Tuesday, January 6, 2004, at 12:05  PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
>> Truman,
>>
>>> However, wouldn't it be nice if someone made a B&W digitical camera -
>>> then 6 megapixesls would rally be six megapixels. The processing 
>>> would
>>> be minized since you would not need to worry much about white balance
>>> (could use a filter to do that).  A true B&W digital camera.
>>
>> There were a couple of Kodak digital cameras that were monochrome, but
>> I
>> don't believe they went as high as 6M pixels.  The Leaf Lumina is a 6M
>> pixel
>> (true 6M pixels, as it is a scanning camera), and does grayscale...but
>> your
>> subjects have to stand very still ;-)  The images are superb from it.
>> I
>> also have a 7k scanning back for my Hasselblad, and in monochrome
>> mode, the
>> images are nothing less than superb...but it's only good for studio
>> work, as
>> it's a scanner.
>>
>> I agree, I wish someone made their Bayer filters so they were
>> removable.
>> The filters are separate from the actual sensor arrays, they are not
>> built-in to the sensor array, they are on top of it, and therefore
>> *could*
>> be removed (or simply replaced with a neutral density filter) if
>> someone
>> really wanted to make the effort...but the issue is the software
>> wouldn't
>> know how to deal with it.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Austin
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as
> they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed 
> from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and
> Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files 
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
> MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE 
> TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
> EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  OWNER 
> AND
> MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF 
> THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE 
> INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS 
> TO OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT 
> OF ANY
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” 
> AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

At 6:32 PM +0000 1/6/04, Mark Hahn wrote:
>I think you will do much better with a Minolta Scan Dual II or III
>for b&w 35mm, but the Epson flatbeds do very well with medium and
>large format... ok, I also thought the thread was on digital b&w, but
>if we go into film a great starter 35mm camera would be one of the
>Rebels with some good primes...

and which B&W film for starters?
--
Sam

All 100 speed films scan pretty well, but in my experience, only the 
400 C-41 films scan well at that speed with this scanner (I've yet to 
see anyone's 35mm Tri-X scanned really well on any home scanner 
though... which is a shame, because I love Tri-X).  I would suggest 
Tmax100 or Delta Pro 100 as good starting 35mm films.  Both can 
easily be pushed to 200, scan well and are very forgiving.  D76/ID11 
are good starting developers for almost all films, though XTOL is 
good for pushing.  Lots of people have different opinions on film 
choices and these are just my recommendations:)

Have fun!

mark

PS  For scanning, I am currently enjoying Kodak T400CN a lot.  I get 
sleaved negatives and an index print for only $3.99 which I think is 
a great bargain.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless 
<samcc@v...> wrote:
> At 6:32 PM +0000 1/6/04, Mark Hahn wrote:
> >I think you will do much better with a Minolta Scan Dual II or III
> >for b&w 35mm, but the Epson flatbeds do very well with medium and
> >large format... ok, I also thought the thread was on digital b&w, 
but

> >if we go into film a great starter 35mm camera would be one of the
> >Rebels with some good primes...
> 
> and which B&W film for starters?
> --
> Sam

Why shoot B&W film at all if you know your output will eventually be 
digital? With a push of a button any color pic can be beautifully 
converted to B&W ( with the added benefit of any combination of 
filters in the channel mixer) . Why run around with B&W film in your 
camera and miss a potential color shot that only color film can do 
justice to. The only B&W film I still shoot is ISO 3200.
K.Monroe



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
<markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> All 100 speed films scan pretty well, but in my experience, only 
the 
> 400 C-41 films scan well at that speed with this scanner (I've yet 
to 
> see anyone's 35mm Tri-X scanned really well on any home scanner 
> though... which is a shame, because I love Tri-X).  I would suggest 
> Tmax100 or Delta Pro 100 as good starting 35mm films.  Both can 
> easily be pushed to 200, scan well and are very forgiving.  
D76/ID11 
> are good starting developers for almost all films, though XTOL is 
> good for pushing.  Lots of people have different opinions on film 
> choices and these are just my recommendations:)
> 
> Have fun!
> 
> mark
> 
> PS  For scanning, I am currently enjoying Kodak T400CN a lot.  I 
get 
> sleaved negatives and an index print for only $3.99 which I think 
is 
> a great bargain.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless 
> <samcc@v...> wrote:
> > At 6:32 PM +0000 1/6/04, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > >I think you will do much better with a Minolta Scan Dual II or 
III
> > >for b&w 35mm, but the Epson flatbeds do very well with medium and
> > >large format... ok, I also thought the thread was on digital 
b&w, 
> but
> > >if we go into film a great starter 35mm camera would be one of 
the

> > >Rebels with some good primes...
> > 
> > and which B&W film for starters?
> > --
> > Sam

On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 16:51, digikdm wrote:

> Why shoot B&W film at all if you know your output will eventually be 
> digital? With a push of a button any color pic can be beautifully 
> converted to B&W ( with the added benefit of any combination of 
> filters in the channel mixer) . Why run around with B&W film in your 
> camera and miss a potential color shot that only color film can do 
> justice to. 
> K.Monroe


For one thing, dynamic range. For another, information density per unit
weight (film weighs a lot less than digital sensors, especially when you
are already hauling 15-16 Kg of 4x5 gear up the mountain). But mostly,
because I "see" better in B&W. B&W film matches my artistic vision.

It's just a philosophy I like - use the best tool for the job. For me,
the best tool is B&W film. Of course, YMMV.


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

I am happier with "true b&w" at ISO 100 than with ISO 100 color 
film.  I am also happier with T400CN (or PortaBW) film than color ISO 
400 film.  I almost never make color prints, but it is true that you 
have more flexiblity shooting color... I recently was unable to print 
a b&w shot that could easily have been fixed if I only had access to 
the color data and was able to mix my colors differently than the 
film had done.  I am currently shooting Techpan (@80 in TD-3) for 
super finegrained b&w images and T400CN as my fast film.  No color 
film can come close to Techpan IMO.  (Didn't I already say that there 
would be opinions that differed from mine? :)

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "digikdm" 
<monroekd@h...> wrote:
> Why shoot B&W film at all if you know your output will eventually 
be 
> digital? With a push of a button any color pic can be beautifully 
> converted to B&W ( with the added benefit of any combination of 
> filters in the channel mixer) . Why run around with B&W film in 
your 
> camera and miss a potential color shot that only color film can do 
> justice to. The only B&W film I still shoot is ISO 3200.
> K.Monroe
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
> <markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> > All 100 speed films scan pretty well, but in my experience, only 
> the 
> > 400 C-41 films scan well at that speed with this scanner (I've 
yet 
> to 
> > see anyone's 35mm Tri-X scanned really well on any home scanner 
> > though... which is a shame, because I love Tri-X).  I would 
suggest 
> > Tmax100 or Delta Pro 100 as good starting 35mm films.  Both can 
> > easily be pushed to 200, scan well and are very forgiving.  
> D76/ID11 
> > are good starting developers for almost all films, though XTOL is 
> > good for pushing.  Lots of people have different opinions on film 
> > choices and these are just my recommendations:)
> > 
> > Have fun!
> > 
> > mark
> > 
> > PS  For scanning, I am currently enjoying Kodak T400CN a lot.  I 
> get 
> > sleaved negatives and an index print for only $3.99 which I think 
> is 
> > a great bargain.
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam 
McCandless 
> > <samcc@v...> wrote:
> > > At 6:32 PM +0000 1/6/04, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > > >I think you will do much better with a Minolta Scan Dual II or 
> III
> > > >for b&w 35mm, but the Epson flatbeds do very well with medium 
and

> > > >large format... ok, I also thought the thread was on digital 
> b&w, 
> > but
> > > >if we go into film a great starter 35mm camera would be one of 
> the
> > > >Rebels with some good primes...
> > > 
> > > and which B&W film for starters?
> > > --
> > > Sam

Speaking strictly for myself, when I'm *thinking* in b/w, I don't 
care for the distraction of making conversions from color (which 
doesn't happen in just a mouse-click, either, at least if you're 
particular about results). In addition, shooting film give me the 
option of printing via non-digital processes with ease. In short, I 
can work with the image as I wish, with or without a digital 
intermediary.

- Barrett

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"digikdm" <monroekd@h...> wrote:

> Why shoot B&W film at all if you know your output will eventually 
>be digital? With a push of a button any color pic can be 
>beautifully converted to B&W ( with the added benefit of any 
>combination of filters in the channel mixer) . Why run around 
>with B&W film in your camera and miss a potential color shot 
>that only color film can do justice to. The only B&W film I still 
>shoot is ISO 3200.
> K.Monroe

K.,

> Why shoot B&W film at all if you know your output will eventually be
> digital? With a push of a button any color pic can be beautifully
> converted to B&W ( with the added benefit of any combination of
> filters in the channel mixer) . Why run around with B&W film in your
> camera and miss a potential color shot that only color film can do
> justice to. The only B&W film I still shoot is ISO 3200.

Because, for me, the results of shooting with B&W film produce the results I
am looking for and are far superior to the results I can get from any Bayer
pattern digital camera, plain and simple.  That's not to say I can't get
great images from doing conversions, I can, and do, and have seen many
others that can/do as well...but it simply isn't the same.  If you want the
look of Tri-X developed in D-76 1:1, and want the high resolution and
tonality of medium format B&W...then you shoot Tri-X with a medium format
camera.  If you want the look of a converted Bayer pattern lower resolution
digital color image...then by all means ;-)

Regards,

Austin

At 9:51 PM +0000 1/7/04, digikdm wrote:
>Why shoot B&W film at all if you know your output will eventually be
>digital? With a push of a button any color pic can be beautifully
>converted to B&W ( with the added benefit of any combination of
>filters in the channel mixer) . Why run around with B&W film in your
>camera and miss a potential color shot that only color film can do
>justice to. The only B&W film I still shoot is ISO 3200.
>K.Monroe

I thought I might carry both, Monroe, at least for a while. I usually 
carry two cameras anyway, one with 400 film and an image-stabilized 
lens and a battery pack on it and another with 100 film and, instead 
of a battery pack, a plate which the head on my tripod accepts. Not 
that this keeps me from missing shots, even - sometimes, it seems, 
especially - among the ones I take. I know what you mean though.

And I'd also appreciate any advice about which color film to use. 
I've using Supra but have already run out of 400 and 800 and have 
only a month or two of 100 left. I've begun to try Fuji's print 
films, including Superia partly because B&H has it up to 1600. But I 
haven't scanned anything but Supra yet.

Thanks.
--
Sam

Mark Hahn writes:

> I've yet to see anyone's 35mm Tri-X scanned really well on
> any home scanner though... which is a shame, because I love
> Tri-X ...

Tri-X can easily be scanned from the scanner's standpoint, but get the
results you want requires a lot of tweaking and practice.

digikdm writes:

> Why shoot B&W film at all if you know your output will eventually be 
> digital? With a push of a button any color pic can be beautifully 
> converted to B&W ...

This is not true, for reasons I have previously explained again, and
again, and again.

Sam McCandless writes:

> And I'd also appreciate any advice about which color film to use.

If you prefer color negative film, I find the new Kodak Portra 400UC to
be amazing--perhaps the closest approach I've seen to slides in a color
negative film.  Note the UC designation--the other Portras don't have
this quality (although they are nice films).  Like all the Portras,
Portra 400UC scans like a dream ... in fact, it seems to scan the best
of all the Portras.  Virtually no adjustment required.  Handles
artificial light well, very high resolution and grain, too.

since no home scanner can accurately capture the actual visible grain 
of Tri-X you are stuck trying to process around this failure... you 
may be able to do this to your satisfaction, but I have not, nor have 
I seen anyone else's work that satisfies me... though I haven't seen 
your work of course.  the scanner scans across the grain and 
quantizes the image as it should, but that does not mean that the 
results are pleasing.  With finer grained films the images already 
look smooth and the averaging that occurs during a scan just 
maintains the smoother look.  For large format work, the quantization 
of Tri-X is not so much an issue because, even though it looks bad 
when you zoom in, you don't have to enlarge it as much and it is left 
in the sub-visible realm.

how do you process out the obvious grain quantization from your Tri-X 
scans?

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Mark Hahn writes:
> 
> > I've yet to see anyone's 35mm Tri-X scanned really well on
> > any home scanner though... which is a shame, because I love
> > Tri-X ...
> 
> Tri-X can easily be scanned from the scanner's standpoint, but get 
the
> results you want requires a lot of tweaking and practice.

Getting good B&W negatives is not only based on the film choice, but the
developer and development dilution and development time.  I strongly suggest
trying D-76 1:1 for Tri-X (and Plus-X).

Regards,

Austin

> since no home scanner can accurately capture the actual visible grain
> of Tri-X you are stuck trying to process around this failure... you
> may be able to do this to your satisfaction, but I have not, nor have
> I seen anyone else's work that satisfies me... though I haven't seen
> your work of course.  the scanner scans across the grain and
> quantizes the image as it should, but that does not mean that the
> results are pleasing.  With finer grained films the images already
> look smooth and the averaging that occurs during a scan just
> maintains the smoother look.  For large format work, the quantization
> of Tri-X is not so much an issue because, even though it looks bad
> when you zoom in, you don't have to enlarge it as much and it is left
> in the sub-visible realm.
>
> how do you process out the obvious grain quantization from your Tri-X
> scans?
>
> mark
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G.
> Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> > Mark Hahn writes:
> >
> > > I've yet to see anyone's 35mm Tri-X scanned really well on
> > > any home scanner though... which is a shame, because I love
> > > Tri-X ...
> >
> > Tri-X can easily be scanned from the scanner's standpoint, but get
> the
> > results you want requires a lot of tweaking and practice.
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
> digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts
> may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the
> group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and
> Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
> THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
> SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
> SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR
> OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
> INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR
> DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER
> RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

"Anthony G. Atkielski" writes:
> 
>> Why shoot B&W film at all if you know your output will eventually be
>> digital? With a push of a button any color pic can be beautifully
>> converted to B&W ...
> 
> This is not true, for reasons I have previously explained again, and
> again, and again.


Please don't, please don't, please don't.

Jon

Tri-X and D-76 1:1 is my personal favorite for traditional 
processing, has been for years, but you suggest that you do something 
special to reduce the grain quantization in the digital processing, 
what is it?  *I* am not happy with how it scans/enlarges from 35mm 
negatives.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Getting good B&W negatives is not only based on the film choice, 
but the
> developer and development dilution and development time.  I 
strongly suggest
> trying D-76 1:1 for Tri-X (and Plus-X).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> > since no home scanner can accurately capture the actual visible 
grain
> > of Tri-X you are stuck trying to process around this failure... 
you
> > may be able to do this to your satisfaction, but I have not, nor 
have
> > I seen anyone else's work that satisfies me... though I haven't 
seen
> > your work of course.  the scanner scans across the grain and
> > quantizes the image as it should, but that does not mean that the
> > results are pleasing.  With finer grained films the images already
> > look smooth and the averaging that occurs during a scan just
> > maintains the smoother look.  For large format work, the 
quantization
> > of Tri-X is not so much an issue because, even though it looks bad
> > when you zoom in, you don't have to enlarge it as much and it is 
left
> > in the sub-visible realm.
> >
> > how do you process out the obvious grain quantization from your 
Tri-X
> > scans?
> >
> > mark
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G.
> > Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> > > Mark Hahn writes:
> > >
> > > > I've yet to see anyone's 35mm Tri-X scanned really well on
> > > > any home scanner though... which is a shame, because I love
> > > > Tri-X ...
> > >
> > > Tri-X can easily be scanned from the scanner's standpoint, but 
get

> > the
> > > results you want requires a lot of tweaking and practice.
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
> > resources as they are often being updated.
> >
> > 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:
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> > messages to keep them short.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> > flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed
> > from the membership without notice.
> > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
> > digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts
> > may be removed from the membership.
> > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules
> > and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the
> > group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and
> > Guidelines" in the Files section:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> >
> > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW,
> > THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
> > THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
> > SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
> > SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
> > LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR
> > OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF
> > DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> > POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
> > INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> > UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR
> > DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> > DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER
> > RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> >  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >

I'm selling my 1280.  I was going to buy some OEM cartridges for it
and place it on ebay, but I thought before I did that I'd offer it up on
the list here in case anyone is interested in it for the new UT inks.
I've been using MIS VM inks, and you don't need to flush those out
before using UT.
     If you're interested, let me know privately.  I can make you a
better deal than ebay because it will save me the cost of the new OEM
inks.

Thanks,
Ed
http://lightandsilver.com

Hi Mark,

I don't do anything special, but I do use a Leaf 45 film scanner...and it is
the only scanner I know that scans B&W as B&W, not as RGB.  This may account
for the exceptional B&W scans I get...and as I've said, it works superbly
with my D-76 1:1 and Tri-X/Plus-X.

Regards,

Austin

> Tri-X and D-76 1:1 is my personal favorite for traditional
> processing, has been for years, but you suggest that you do something
> special to reduce the grain quantization in the digital processing,
> what is it?  *I* am not happy with how it scans/enlarges from 35mm
> negatives.
>
> mark
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin
> Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > Getting good B&W negatives is not only based on the film choice,
> but the
> > developer and development dilution and development time.  I
> strongly suggest
> > trying D-76 1:1 for Tri-X (and Plus-X).
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> >
> > > since no home scanner can accurately capture the actual visible
> grain
> > > of Tri-X you are stuck trying to process around this failure...
> you
> > > may be able to do this to your satisfaction, but I have not, nor
> have
> > > I seen anyone else's work that satisfies me... though I haven't
> seen
> > > your work of course.  the scanner scans across the grain and
> > > quantizes the image as it should, but that does not mean that the
> > > results are pleasing.  With finer grained films the images already
> > > look smooth and the averaging that occurs during a scan just
> > > maintains the smoother look.  For large format work, the
> quantization
> > > of Tri-X is not so much an issue because, even though it looks bad
> > > when you zoom in, you don't have to enlarge it as much and it is
> left
> > > in the sub-visible realm.
> > >
> > > how do you process out the obvious grain quantization from your
> Tri-X
> > > scans?
> > >
> > > mark
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G.
> > > Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> > > > Mark Hahn writes:
> > > >
> > > > > I've yet to see anyone's 35mm Tri-X scanned really well on
> > > > > any home scanner though... which is a shame, because I love
> > > > > Tri-X ...
> > > >
> > > > Tri-X can easily be scanned from the scanner's standpoint, but
> get
> > > the
> > > > results you want requires a lot of tweaking and practice.

Ok, that isn't a typical "home scanner" :)  (which is what I 
referenced somewhere in the thread)

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> I don't do anything special, but I do use a Leaf 45 film 
scanner...and it is
> the only scanner I know that scans B&W as B&W, not as RGB.  This 
may account
> for the exceptional B&W scans I get...and as I've said, it works 
superbly
> with my D-76 1:1 and Tri-X/Plus-X.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> > Tri-X and D-76 1:1 is my personal favorite for traditional
> > processing, has been for years, but you suggest that you do 
something
> > special to reduce the grain quantization in the digital 
processing,
> > what is it?  *I* am not happy with how it scans/enlarges from 35mm
> > negatives.
> >
> > mark
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin
> > Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > Getting good B&W negatives is not only based on the film choice,
> > but the
> > > developer and development dilution and development time.  I
> > strongly suggest
> > > trying D-76 1:1 for Tri-X (and Plus-X).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Austin
> > >
> > > > since no home scanner can accurately capture the actual 
visible
> > grain
> > > > of Tri-X you are stuck trying to process around this 
failure...
> > you
> > > > may be able to do this to your satisfaction, but I have not, 
nor
> > have
> > > > I seen anyone else's work that satisfies me... though I 
haven't
> > seen
> > > > your work of course.  the scanner scans across the grain and
> > > > quantizes the image as it should, but that does not mean that 
the
> > > > results are pleasing.  With finer grained films the images 
already
> > > > look smooth and the averaging that occurs during a scan just
> > > > maintains the smoother look.  For large format work, the
> > quantization
> > > > of Tri-X is not so much an issue because, even though it 
looks bad
> > > > when you zoom in, you don't have to enlarge it as much and it 
is
> > left
> > > > in the sub-visible realm.
> > > >
> > > > how do you process out the obvious grain quantization from 
your
> > Tri-X
> > > > scans?
> > > >
> > > > mark
> > > >
> > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
G.
> > > > Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> > > > > Mark Hahn writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've yet to see anyone's 35mm Tri-X scanned really well on
> > > > > > any home scanner though... which is a shame, because I 
love
> > > > > > Tri-X ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Tri-X can easily be scanned from the scanner's standpoint, 
but

> > get
> > > > the
> > > > > results you want requires a lot of tweaking and practice.

Hi Mark,

Er, why not?  You can buy a near mint one these days for $1000...yeah, it's
slow for color, but this IS a B&W list, now isn't it ;-)

Regards,

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:03 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Good camera for B&W
>
>
> Ok, that isn't a typical "home scanner" :)  (which is what I
> referenced somewhere in the thread)
>
> mark
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin
> Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > I don't do anything special, but I do use a Leaf 45 film
> scanner...and it is
> > the only scanner I know that scans B&W as B&W, not as RGB.  This
> may account
> > for the exceptional B&W scans I get...and as I've said, it works
> superbly
> > with my D-76 1:1 and Tri-X/Plus-X.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> >
> > > Tri-X and D-76 1:1 is my personal favorite for traditional
> > > processing, has been for years, but you suggest that you do
> something
> > > special to reduce the grain quantization in the digital
> processing,
> > > what is it?  *I* am not happy with how it scans/enlarges from 35mm
> > > negatives.
> > >
> > > mark
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin
> > > Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > > Getting good B&W negatives is not only based on the film choice,
> > > but the
> > > > developer and development dilution and development time.  I
> > > strongly suggest
> > > > trying D-76 1:1 for Tri-X (and Plus-X).
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Austin
> > > >
> > > > > since no home scanner can accurately capture the actual
> visible
> > > grain
> > > > > of Tri-X you are stuck trying to process around this
> failure...
> > > you
> > > > > may be able to do this to your satisfaction, but I have not,
> nor
> > > have
> > > > > I seen anyone else's work that satisfies me... though I
> haven't
> > > seen
> > > > > your work of course.  the scanner scans across the grain and
> > > > > quantizes the image as it should, but that does not mean that
> the
> > > > > results are pleasing.  With finer grained films the images
> already
> > > > > look smooth and the averaging that occurs during a scan just
> > > > > maintains the smoother look.  For large format work, the
> > > quantization
> > > > > of Tri-X is not so much an issue because, even though it
> looks bad
> > > > > when you zoom in, you don't have to enlarge it as much and it
> is
> > > left
> > > > > in the sub-visible realm.
> > > > >
> > > > > how do you process out the obvious grain quantization from
> your
> > > Tri-X
> > > > > scans?
> > > > >
> > > > > mark
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony
> G.
> > > > > Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> > > > > > Mark Hahn writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've yet to see anyone's 35mm Tri-X scanned really well on
> > > > > > > any home scanner though... which is a shame, because I
> love
> > > > > > > Tri-X ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tri-X can easily be scanned from the scanner's standpoint,
> but
> > > get
> > > > > the
> > > > > > results you want requires a lot of tweaking and practice.
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
> digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts
> may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the
> group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and
> Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
> THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
> SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
> SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR
> OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
> INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR
> DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER
> RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Mark Hahn writes:

> since no home scanner can accurately capture the actual visible grain 
> of Tri-X you are stuck trying to process around this failure...

I don't want the grain, just the overall response to light.  Indeed,
grain is the biggest problem with Tri-X.

> how do you process out the obvious grain quantization from your Tri-X
> scans?

I try not to pay any attention to grain.  I wish Tri-X had no grain.

In a message dated 1/6/04 8:07:38 PM, kcarney1@... writes:


> I don't know...the pic on his website didn't look all that IR to me.  Kind
> of weak foliage, skin tones instead of marble, etc.  I seem to remember
> someone who would modify consumer cameras by removing the IR blocking
> filter, like my Olympus C-4000, for which I have a #87 and R72 filter.  Does
> that ring a bell?  Thanks.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>   --Ken Carney
>     www.kencarney.com
> 

Hi Ken:

This company does that with Nikon Coolpix cameras, but they may do it with 
others:

Pro Camera-216-661-8666   about $125. They can also shave the lens to make 
the autofocus accurate. I didn't understand this, but others might.

Hope that helps,

Andrew Darlow
www.andrewdarlow.com


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