Digital BW, The Print

I used to be primarily a large format photographer 4x5 & 5x7, as 
well as doing a fair amount of 35mm B&W. I worked in silver and 
palladium print making. I am fairly new to digital photography and 
up to this point have only worked with digital images from my 3 
megapixel camera; I've really enjoyed it, and it has gotten me back 
into photography.  The digital darkroom is much more convienient 
than a wet darkroom, hallelujah!

In the near future I am going to get a wide format Epson printer so 
I can do B&W right, with the new B&W pigment inks.  From what I have 
been able to gather from various sources on the web for ultimate 
control and quality the way to go is using a film camera and then 
scanning the negatives.  Not desiring to pull out my old 5x7, or 
purchasing a scanner that handle it.  I will be looking at some 
second hand medium format equipment, probably 
Mamiya.  I really like the size and convienience of the 6x4.5 size 
cameras, but I haven't ruled out the possiblity of the 6x7 format.  
My question is will I see much of a difference in quality in 16x20 
size prints, between the 6x4.5 and the 6x7 format???  I plan on 
doing color as well as B&W prints.  I will probably use high 
resolution color negative films and the new higher speed B&W 
negative films that are color processed.  I may have to resort to 
processing my own higher speed B&W negatives if I can't control the 
highlights, with the other films mentioned, in my outdoor night 
photography.  I apologize for the length of this message!
Thanks to those who respond.
Randy

Hello Randy,

>My question is will I see much of a difference in quality in 16x20 
>size prints, between the 6x4.5 and the 6x7 format???  

Absolutely, yes.

Regards,
Clayton


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

I'm thinking of going from 6x6 to 6x7 myself.  and wish there was an affordable 4x5 film 
scanner (no NOT a flat bed)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...> wrote:

> Hello Randy,
> 
> >My question is will I see much of a difference in quality in 16x20 
> >size prints, between the 6x4.5 and the 6x7 format???  
> 
> Absolutely, yes.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Anyone wanting to see first hand what impact negative size has on the
final print should go the Library of Congress web site and download
the 12mb TIF of Walker Evans' "Floyd Burroughs, Cotton Sharecropper,
Hale County Alabama"
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/I?fsaall:43:./temp/~ammem_27kv::displayType=1:m856sd=ppmsc:m856sf=00244:@@@
and then print it. Don't do any PS adjustments other than normal
printer profile, just send the raw 400 dpi 8x10 to the printer. Look
at the print and think about it coming from a 12 meg file but being
from an 8x10 neg.

Bob Michaels 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "randyrancier"
<randyrancier@y...> wrote:

> I used to be primarily a large format photographer 4x5 & 5x7, as 
> well as doing a fair amount of 35mm B&W. I worked in silver and 
> palladium print making. I am fairly new to digital photography and 
> up to this point have only worked with digital images from my 3 
> megapixel camera; I've really enjoyed it, and it has gotten me back 
> into photography.  The digital darkroom is much more convienient 
> than a wet darkroom, hallelujah!
> 
> In the near future I am going to get a wide format Epson printer so 
> I can do B&W right, with the new B&W pigment inks.  From what I have 
> been able to gather from various sources on the web for ultimate 
> control and quality the way to go is using a film camera and then 
> scanning the negatives.  Not desiring to pull out my old 5x7, or 
> purchasing a scanner that handle it.  I will be looking at some 
> second hand medium format equipment, probably 
> Mamiya.  I really like the size and convienience of the 6x4.5 size 
> cameras, but I haven't ruled out the possiblity of the 6x7 format.  
> My question is will I see much of a difference in quality in 16x20 
> size prints, between the 6x4.5 and the 6x7 format???  I plan on 
> doing color as well as B&W prints.  I will probably use high 
> resolution color negative films and the new higher speed B&W 
> negative films that are color processed.  I may have to resort to 
> processing my own higher speed B&W negatives if I can't control the 
> highlights, with the other films mentioned, in my outdoor night 
> photography.  I apologize for the length of this message!
> Thanks to those who respond.
> Randy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "randyrancier" 
<randyrancier@y...> wrote:
>> In the near future I am going to get a wide format Epson printer 
so 
> I can do B&W right, with the new B&W pigment inks.  

Having just set up my second 'wide' printer, (Epson 7600) I have to 
ask: what do you consider wide format? ie what will be your max size?
 The larger neg size will definitely show in your finished work, but 
obviously it will be much greater at 24x30 vs 13x17. As for 5x7: 
it's a bear, but that big a neg will produce excellent results on a 
$1000.00 flat-bed, wereas the med format negs will require a more 
expensive scanner. 
  I will be looking at some 
> second hand medium format equipment, probably 
> Mamiya.  I really like the size and convienience of the 6x4.5 size 
> cameras, but I haven't ruled out the possiblity of the 6x7 format. 

The Mamiya 6x7 would be an excellent choice. 

> I may have to resort to 
> processing my own higher speed B&W negatives if I can't control 
the 
> highlights, with the other films mentioned, in my outdoor night 
> photography. 

One nice thing about a good scanner: it is capable of recording a 
much wider range than photo paper, and if that's not enough, then 
there's all the various editing tecniques to bring it all into line. 

Enjoy!

Steve Karafyllakis

http://www.stevekphoto.com

Randy-

> My question is will I see much of a difference in quality in 16x20
> size prints, between the 6x4.5 and the 6x7 format???

It is a difficult and subjective question to answer.  I think the best 
answer is: if you could tell the difference between images taken on 
your 4x5 vs your 5x7 then your aesthetic may be bothered by difference 
between 6x4.5 and 6x7.  For most people, even very precise people like 
those on this list, I suspect that the difference between medium format 
sizes would be unnoticed.  The lenses, obviously, make a much larger 
contribution.

--
KevinG

No kidding about the responses.  All I want to be able to do is get 
really nice, up to 16x20 prints, color and B&W; most of my work will 
be 11x14 or smaller.  I'm not expecting contact print quality, but I 
do have a critical eye for sharpness and grain.  I don't think 
sharpness will be a problem with either the 6x4.5 or 6x7 neg size, 
but at what point will grain become perceptable with the new 
negative materials and the tools available with Photoshop?  I'm sure 
it depends to some degree on the film used and possibly choice of 
scanner.

Thanks again,

Randy
 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, J Vee 
<j.vee@g...> wrote:
> Just one end of the spectrum of responses I expect you will get.  
I have
> kind of gone down the road you are exploring.  Found digital 
cameras great
> for certain things but not for fine arts photography (?yet).  
Settled on the
> 3/4 gig file from (my) drum scanner from 4X5 and 1 3/4 gig file 
from 11 X
> 14.  Just no substitute for the look and ³feel² of the work from 
this
> source, no matter what I do in Photoshop.  This is true even with 
a print as
> small as 11 X 14, of course even more so with a 48 X 65 mural 
print.
> 
> On 2/12/04 1:26 PM, "randyrancier" <randyrancier@y...> wrote:
> 
> > I used to be primarily a large format photographer 4x5 & 5x7, as
> > well as doing a fair amount of 35mm B&W. I worked in silver and
> > palladium print making. I am fairly new to digital photography 
and
> > up to this point have only worked with digital images from my 3
> > megapixel camera; I've really enjoyed it, and it has gotten me 
back

> > into photography.  The digital darkroom is much more convienient
> > than a wet darkroom, hallelujah!
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would consider your camera options first.  With different 
film/developer combinations you can probably make up most of the 
difference, or at least get what you want out of either, and as 
someone said, the lens will play in big time.  But you have to live 
with your camera choice for all the photos you take.  If you fall in 
love with one of the 645 cameras you will be able to make it work for 
you, if you fall in love with a 6x7 then get that.  Going 6x6 puts 
you in the middle and also gets you out of having to flip the camera 
for portrait or landscape format if you allow cropping... not all 
medium format cameras shoot *that* comfortably in portrait mode).  If 
you don't care, then just assume bigger is better.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "randyrancier" 
<randyrancier@y...> wrote:
> No kidding about the responses.  All I want to be able to do is get 
> really nice, up to 16x20 prints, color and B&W; most of my work 
will 
> be 11x14 or smaller.  I'm not expecting contact print quality, but 
I 
> do have a critical eye for sharpness and grain.  I don't think 
> sharpness will be a problem with either the 6x4.5 or 6x7 neg size, 
> but at what point will grain become perceptable with the new 
> negative materials and the tools available with Photoshop?  I'm 
sure 

> it depends to some degree on the film used and possibly choice of 
> scanner.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Randy
>  
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, J Vee 
> <j.vee@g...> wrote:
> > Just one end of the spectrum of responses I expect you will get.  
> I have
> > kind of gone down the road you are exploring.  Found digital 
> cameras great
> > for certain things but not for fine arts photography (?yet).  
> Settled on the
> > 3/4 gig file from (my) drum scanner from 4X5 and 1 3/4 gig file 
> from 11 X
> > 14.  Just no substitute for the look and ³feel² of the work from 
> this
> > source, no matter what I do in Photoshop.  This is true even with 
> a print as
> > small as 11 X 14, of course even more so with a 48 X 65 mural 
> print.
> > 
> > On 2/12/04 1:26 PM, "randyrancier" <randyrancier@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > > I used to be primarily a large format photographer 4x5 & 5x7, as
> > > well as doing a fair amount of 35mm B&W. I worked in silver and
> > > palladium print making. I am fairly new to digital photography 
> and
> > > up to this point have only worked with digital images from my 3
> > > megapixel camera; I've really enjoyed it, and it has gotten me 
> back
> > > into photography.  The digital darkroom is much more convienient
> > > than a wet darkroom, hallelujah!
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Many people are doing really good work in the 645 format.  The smaller formats leave no room for error in exposure, development, etc.  While film/developer combinations play a role in the final product, good technique and attention to detail are absolutely critical to excellent, consistent results in smaller formats.
 
Tom Baker

randyrancier <randyrancier@...> wrote:
No kidding about the responses.  All I want to be able to do is get 
really nice, up to 16x20 prints, color and B&W; most of my work will 
be 11x14 or smaller.  I'm not expecting contact print quality, but I 
do have a critical eye for sharpness and grain.  I don't think 
sharpness will be a problem with either the 6x4.5 or 6x7 neg size, 
but at what point will grain become perceptable with the new 
negative materials and the tools available with Photoshop?  I'm sure 
it depends to some degree on the film used and possibly choice of 
scanner.

Thanks again,

Randy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, J Vee 
<j.vee@g...> wrote:
> Just one end of the spectrum of responses I expect you will get.  
I have
> kind of gone down the road you are exploring.  Found digital 
cameras great
> for certain things but not for fine arts photography (?yet).  
Settled on the
> 3/4 gig file from (my) drum scanner from 4X5 and 1 3/4 gig file 
from 11 X
> 14.  Just no substitute for the look and �feel� of the work from 
this
> source, no matter what I do in Photoshop.  This is true even with 
a print as
> small as 11 X 14, of course even more so with a 48 X 65 mural 
print.
> 
> On 2/12/04 1:26 PM, "randyrancier" <randyrancier@y...> wrote:
> 
> > I used to be primarily a large format photographer 4x5 & 5x7, as
> > well as doing a fair amount of 35mm B&W. I worked in silver and
> > palladium print making. I am fairly new to digital photography 
and
> > up to this point have only worked with digital images from my 3
> > megapixel camera; I've really enjoyed it, and it has gotten me 
back
> > into photography.  The digital darkroom is much more convienient
> > than a wet darkroom, hallelujah!
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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]

Just one end of the spectrum of responses I expect you will get.  I have
kind of gone down the road you are exploring.  Found digital cameras great
for certain things but not for fine arts photography (?yet).  Settled on the
3/4 gig file from (my) drum scanner from 4X5 and 1 3/4 gig file from 11 X
14.  Just no substitute for the look and ³feel² of the work from this
source, no matter what I do in Photoshop.  This is true even with a print as
small as 11 X 14, of course even more so with a 48 X 65 mural print.

On 2/12/04 1:26 PM, "randyrancier" <randyrancier@...> wrote:

> I used to be primarily a large format photographer 4x5 & 5x7, as
> well as doing a fair amount of 35mm B&W. I worked in silver and
> palladium print making. I am fairly new to digital photography and
> up to this point have only worked with digital images from my 3
> megapixel camera; I've really enjoyed it, and it has gotten me back
> into photography.  The digital darkroom is much more convienient
> than a wet darkroom, hallelujah!
> 



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

I think what I will probably end up doing, since I will have to sink 
a considerable amount into a decent scanner that will handle 2 1/4, 
I will get a older TLR camera with a good lens and see what I get.  
A 6x6 image cropped will use approximately a 6x4.5 of the negative.  
If I'm happy with the results then I can move on to 6x4.5, otherwise 
it will be a 6x7.  Who knows, by then maybe the digital cameras will 
have the edge.

Thanks for all of  your responses; it's always good to hash things 
out before jumping.

Randy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> Many people are doing really good work in the 645 format.  The 
smaller formats leave no room for error in exposure, development, 
etc.  While film/developer combinations play a role in the final 
product, good technique and attention to detail are absolutely 
critical to excellent, consistent results in smaller formats.
>  
> Tom Baker
> 
> randyrancier <randyrancier@y...> wrote:
> No kidding about the responses.  All I want to be able to do is 
get 
> really nice, up to 16x20 prints, color and B&W; most of my work 
will 
> be 11x14 or smaller.  I'm not expecting contact print quality, but 
I 
> do have a critical eye for sharpness and grain.  I don't think 
> sharpness will be a problem with either the 6x4.5 or 6x7 neg size, 
> but at what point will grain become perceptable with the new 
> negative materials and the tools available with Photoshop?  I'm 
sure 
> it depends to some degree on the film used and possibly choice of 
> scanner.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Randy
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, J Vee 
> <j.vee@g...> wrote:
> > Just one end of the spectrum of responses I expect you will 
get.  
> I have
> > kind of gone down the road you are exploring.  Found digital 
> cameras great
> > for certain things but not for fine arts photography (?yet).  
> Settled on the
> > 3/4 gig file from (my) drum scanner from 4X5 and 1 3/4 gig file 
> from 11 X
> > 14.  Just no substitute for the look and ³feel² of the work from 
> this
> > source, no matter what I do in Photoshop.  This is true even 
with 
> a print as
> > small as 11 X 14, of course even more so with a 48 X 65 mural 
> print.
> > 
> > On 2/12/04 1:26 PM, "randyrancier" <randyrancier@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > > I used to be primarily a large format photographer 4x5 & 5x7, 
as
> > > well as doing a fair amount of 35mm B&W. I worked in silver and
> > > palladium print making. I am fairly new to digital photography 
> and
> > > up to this point have only worked with digital images from my 3
> > > megapixel camera; I've really enjoyed it, and it has gotten me 
> back
> > > into photography.  The digital darkroom is much more 
convienient
> > > than a wet darkroom, hallelujah!
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 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]

This is interesting - as I am going through the same
process.  

I had been using an Epson 3200 for all my negative
scanning, then I purchased a Canon 10d.  With my
printing sizes, shooting 35mm is no longer needed. 
The 35mm scans from the 3200 just can't hold
themselves up against the 10d.  Plus the obvious
benefits of not needing to dust-clone and all the
money I am saving by not buying compressed air.

As the 35mm negatives were just too soft when scanned
- I mothballed the scanner.  I have been contemplating
a new dedicated film scanner purcase, but I've bought
enough (know what I mean?).  Besides, as I print
smaller than 11x14, I do not need to shoot 35.

The moral of the story, yesterday I scanned a 645
negative with the 3200.  I had run a few tests and
found that no matter how I scanned it - Full
resolution via the epson driver, or at the output size
at 360dpi with silverfast with 4 passes; I get the
same sharpness (but vastly different file sizes).  So,
I scanned a negative directly with silverfast at an
output of 4x5 with 360 dpi, and printed the image
directly without any photoshop controls or
intervention via UT2/1280.  I can honestly say that
this is everybit as sharp as a contact print - and the
ink gives a certain "platinum" look to the final
image.  Once agian, kudos to Paul.

I have not tried a large print from the from the same
scanner, but at the native resolution and a 6x6
negative - I believe you can make around a 20x20 with
360dpi.  I can attest that medium format negatives are
sharp with my 3200.  Pretty good for an inexpensive
flatbed...

Don

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html