Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: On film - is this thread beginning again or ending? Beginning if up to Anthony

Re: On film - is this thread beginning again or ending? Beginning if up to Anthony

2004-04-12 by Jon

> has this not been argued time and time again?  Please
> use personal email instead of the list to argue.
> 
> don

But Don, you would be taking away Anthony's reason for being on this
list--trolling for arguments. One look through the archives will show he has
never posted a message about digital B/W inkjet printing. I've been on other
lists that he has been kicked off of for the same reason. Strange that there
is a portion of the posting guidelines written explicitly for this type of
troll:

- 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.

I'm not sure why he is still with us. Maybe one of the moderators made a
donation:

http://atkielski.com/inlink.php?/main/Donations.html

and they are trying to get their money's worth?

:D

Jon

Re: [Digital BW] Re: On film - is this thread beginning again or ending? ...

2004-04-13 by Don M

Actually, image capture is on topic:
"Please only post messages and questions relating to making B&W
(monochrome) prints using digital techniques. This may sound rather narrow but
it can be very broad since it is impossible to discuss final output without
considering input in great detail. The discussion will include all aspects of
photography from image capture through final print, but posters should make an
effort to relate their posts to the ultimate production of B&W prints."

How does C-41 BW fit into the debate?   Is it akin to digital color to BW 
conversions in the qualities being debated?  Or is it closer to traditional 
BW film's qualities?

-Don M






Jon wrote:
> > has this not been argued time and time again?  Please
> > use personal email instead of the list to argue.
> >
> > don
>
>But Don, you would be taking away Anthony's reason for being on this
>list--trolling for arguments. One look through the archives will show he has
>never posted a message about digital B/W inkjet printing. I've been on other
>lists that he has been kicked off of for the same reason. Strange that there
>is a portion of the posting guidelines written explicitly for this type of
>troll:
>
>- 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.
>
>I'm not sure why he is still with us. Maybe one of the moderators made a
>donation:
>
>http://atkielski.com/inlink.php?/main/Donations.html
>
>and they are trying to get their money's worth?
>
>:D
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>



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

Re[2]: [Digital BW] Re: On film - is this thread beginning again or ending? ...

2004-04-13 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Don M writes:

> How does C-41 BW fit into the debate? Is it akin to digital color to
> BW conversions in the qualities being debated? Or is it closer to
> traditional BW film's qualities?

It's the same as traditional B&W film in the context of this particular
debate.  Most C-41 B&W films, though, have a very even spectral response
similar to that of color films--which means that they seem to be a bit
more flat in their rendering of light and shadow, not unlike the results
from color conversions.  This is by design, though, since film
manufacturers could design C-41 B&W films with spectral sensitivites
similar to those of traditional B&W films, if they wanted to.  I suppose
the companies perceive that photographers using C-41 films want that
flat look.  I don't care for the look of Portra 400BW in low-contrast
daylight images, but it sure looks nice when you are trying to handle
high-contrast images taken at night.

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.