Digital BW, The Print

I am interested in hearing opinions on the relative merits of film 
versus digital capture for images to be printed in B&W.

How would an image captured on 35 mm film and scanned with a Nikon 
Coolscan V compare to an image captured directly on a 6 mp Digital 
SLR?

For those who use film, do you prefer to use B&W or color film? What 
are your favorite films?

It seems to me that color digital capture or color film capture would 
offer more control over the image when brought into Photoshop and 
converted to B&W using the channel mixer.

Thaks,

Roger

From one with 25+ years of conventional wet darkroom B&W experience 
in both 35mm and medium format, 2 months experience scanning and 
photoshoping negatives, and 6 months experience with digital 
cameras.....

Bottom line - today a real B&W scanned negative will beat a 6mp 
digital image by about 10%. With an 8mp camera the advantage drops to 
5%. With an 11mp camera the advantage is gone. By advantage I mean 
sharpness, resolution, and tone control.

Assuming: you have an excellent B&W negative from a very good 
camera/lens with perfect zone system control exposure, outstanding 
development chemistry, a top quality scanner, and tons of patience, 
experience and time to master negative scanning. Also assuming you 
are making prints bigger than 8x10. 

I studied negative scanning for months and followed hundred of 
Internet BBS discussions by people sharing techniques for overcoming 
the problems of scanning B&W negatives. All scanners are engineered 
to scan color and do a poor job with B&W (they don't do a very good 
job with color either), so people have come up with hundreds 
of "tips" on how to overcome the problems inherint in scanning 
negatives.

But the major roadblock for me was time. It takes forever to scan 
negatives. My brief experients with scanning B&W (and color) negs 
showed that no one process worked for all negs. Each neg required 
different settings to get the optimum scan. So, a 4 to 7 minute scan 
for the first attempt, followed by 2 or 3 more scans of the same neg 
to find the "sweet spot" followed by lots of photoshop time to clean 
up the dust spots and other small imperfections. Then you are at the 
starting point of a digital camera image where you can begin 
the "creative" process of adjusting tone, contrast, etc.

So I decided to put the scanner money into digital cameras instead, 
and have not regretted the decision. The scanner stays around for the 
low probablilty I will need to scan and print something from a 25 
year file of negatives.

But the digital camera B&W process has it's problems too. The biggest 
problem for me is too many choices. I've collected about 
7 "techniques" for converting the color digital image to B&W. That 
control, plus selective masking (dodging and burning) in Photoshop 
means I can review hundreds of "versions" of a B&W image in a few 
minutes. Sometimes I go crazy trying to decide. In the wet darkroom I 
could use a few different contrast filters and my magic wand for very 
limited dodging and burning to see 4 or 5 different versions of a 
print in a couple of hours.

Crown_Red,

> Bottom line - today a real B&W scanned negative will beat a 6mp
> digital image by about 10%. With an 8mp camera the advantage drops to
> 5%. With an 11mp camera the advantage is gone. By advantage I mean
> sharpness, resolution, and tone control.

This is utter nonsense.

> I studied negative scanning for months and followed hundred of
> Internet BBS discussions by people sharing techniques for overcoming
> the problems of scanning B&W negatives.

Exactly WHAT problems?  Be VERY specific.

> All scanners are engineered
> to scan color

That is NOT true.  The Leafscan 35 and 45 can scan B&W in B&W.  Drum
scanners, as they have separate channels, can be set-up for scanning B&W as
well.

> and do a poor job with B&W (they don't do a very good
> job with color either),

Again, utter nonsense.  IF you know how to use the scanner, you can get
exceptional B&W scans from an RGB scanner.

> so people have come up with hundreds
> of "tips" on how to overcome the problems inherent in scanning
> negatives.

Not for me they don't!

> But the major roadblock for me was time. It takes forever to scan
> negatives.

I won't bother to address this issue right now...as it is a separate issue.
For *some* people, digital does have some advantages, but not for all, and
as far as time goes, digital can take significantly longer.

> But the digital camera B&W process has it's problems too. The biggest
> problem for me is too many choices. I've collected about
> 7 "techniques" for converting the color digital image to B&W.

The BIGGEST problem is the fact that you are using an RGB sensor, in a Bayer
pattern that only captures %50 Green, %25 Red, and %25 Blue information.
You first have to understand that, before beating your chest about the
(dis-)advantages of digital B&W image capture.  Digital cameras that are
monochromatic are available, but you are apparently not using one, so that
doesn't enter into the conversation.

> That
> control, plus selective masking (dodging and burning) in Photoshop
> means I can review hundreds of "versions" of a B&W image in a few
> minutes.

You can do the exact same to a scanned negative.

Please, have your ducks lined up before attempting to discuss this subject
in an authoritative manner.

Regards,

Austin

Can we just kill this repetitive subject right here ­ please.  I think we
all know where this will end up.  Read the archives!

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 16:46:21 -0400
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Film vs Digital Capture

Crown_Red,

> Bottom line - today a real B&W scanned negative will beat a 6mp
> digital image by about 10%. With an 8mp camera the advantage drops to
> 5%. With an 11mp camera the advantage is gone. By advantage I mean
> sharpness, resolution, and tone control.

This is utter nonsense.

> I studied negative scanning for months and followed hundred of
> Internet BBS discussions by people sharing techniques for overcoming
> the problems of scanning B&W negatives.

Exactly WHAT problems?  Be VERY specific.

> All scanners are engineered
> to scan color

That is NOT true.  The Leafscan 35 and 45 can scan B&W in B&W.  Drum
scanners, as they have separate channels, can be set-up for scanning B&W as
well.

> and do a poor job with B&W (they don't do a very good
> job with color either),

Again, utter nonsense.  IF you know how to use the scanner, you can get
exceptional B&W scans from an RGB scanner.

> so people have come up with hundreds
> of "tips" on how to overcome the problems inherent in scanning
> negatives.

Not for me they don't!

> But the major roadblock for me was time. It takes forever to scan
> negatives.

I won't bother to address this issue right now...as it is a separate issue.
For *some* people, digital does have some advantages, but not for all, and
as far as time goes, digital can take significantly longer.

> But the digital camera B&W process has it's problems too. The biggest
> problem for me is too many choices. I've collected about
> 7 "techniques" for converting the color digital image to B&W.

The BIGGEST problem is the fact that you are using an RGB sensor, in a Bayer
pattern that only captures %50 Green, %25 Red, and %25 Blue information.
You first have to understand that, before beating your chest about the
(dis-)advantages of digital B&W image capture.  Digital cameras that are
monochromatic are available, but you are apparently not using one, so that
doesn't enter into the conversation.

> That
> control, plus selective masking (dodging and burning) in Photoshop
> means I can review hundreds of "versions" of a B&W image in a few
> minutes.

You can do the exact same to a scanned negative.

Please, have your ducks lined up before attempting to discuss this subject
in an authoritative manner.

Regards,

Austin





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

> Digital cameras that are monochromatic are available, but you 
> are apparently not using one, so that doesn't enter into the 
> conversation.

I don't have any interest in digital v. film, but I do in b&w --what camera
are you referring to?  Thx

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

Roger.  If you live in the U.S. I'd be happy to mail you a CD with a few
Nikon scans and DSLR RAW files and you can see for yourself how they print
(I print to a 2200 now).  They will be unprocessed so you will need
Photoshop.  The DSLR is addictive and gives very high image quality (with
high quality lenses), but with film you get a considerably larger file and
get to use faster lenses for the most part.  Kind of depends on what sort of
photography you do.  For 35mm film my favorite is Kodak C-41 b&w.  I haven't
had that much luck converting color negs to b&w, though of course that is
necessary with a DSLR.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: roger98195 [mailto:roger98195@...] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:23 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Film vs Digital Capture
> 
> I am interested in hearing opinions on the relative merits of 
> film versus digital capture for images to be printed in B&W.
> 
> How would an image captured on 35 mm film and scanned with a 
> Nikon Coolscan V compare to an image captured directly on a 6 
> mp Digital SLR?
> 
> For those who use film, do you prefer to use B&W or color 
> film? What are your favorite films?
> 
> It seems to me that color digital capture or color film 
> capture would offer more control over the image when brought 
> into Photoshop and converted to B&W using the channel mixer.
> 
> Thaks,
> 
> Roger

Austin,

Please don't. This dead horse has been pulverized into dust by now.

New people to the list: there is a huge archive, please research your
questions there first. 99% of questions have been asked several times
before.

Jon

> Message: 17
> Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 16:46:21 -0400
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> Subject: RE: Re: Film vs Digital Capture
> 
> Crown_Red,

Jon,

> Please don't. This dead horse has been pulverized into dust by now.

I agree, but I won't let such a post just go unanswered...as these dead
horses seem to have a bit of a Lazarus to them.

Austin

IMHO the developer has more to do with how a film looks than the choice of
brand.  For B&W 35mm film used in a hand-held camera, I would recommend
using XTOL developer.  I would choose this hands-down over D-76 or HC-110.
There have been many published discussions of the differences, but all you
need to do is blow up your shots to 11x14 size and you will see for
yourself.  Check grain, shadow detail, and the transitions in tonality in
very smooth tone continuous subjects.

Personally, I shoot Tmax film now.

I think that for hand-held photography, like fashion and photojournalism, I
would select the digital camera.

If you are interested in scenic or fine art photography, and if you can use
a tripod, film may offer much higher quality.

I think a career photographer may want to own both.  If you buy the Nikon,
the old lenses fit and work fine, so one set of lenses will serve both your
film and digital cameras.  I know that many staff members of the local paper
here are shooting with the latest Nikon digital body and zooms, and it seems
every one of them has the legendary 24mm F2 lens which they use about as
often.  You can sure tell the difference looking at the daily newspaper.
One photographer was over last week shooting a feature, and that is what she
used, a thirty year old lens that was beat to death on a brand new camera.
(note the F2.8 is not the same lens, it does not have the floating center
element, which is what makes the F2 so great)  And there are many other
classic lenses that slay the new versions made for the digital cameras, such
as the 55mm Micro-Nikkor.

Converting color to B&W offers you more options than shooting B&W film only
as far as post-processing filtration is concerned.  The big difference
between B&W vs color film is the range of dark to light values that the film
can record.  And the further alterations that you can do to it in
developing.  

Here is an example:  you take a night photograph showing brilliant
streetlights and deep shadows.  To develop this negative for maximum
quality, you want to push process the low values (shadows) because they need
all the help they can get.  However, the highlights are already over-exposed
and need "pull development" so the emulsion doesn't become opaque.  To
accomplish this, you put the film in developer for about 20 seconds, then
place it in a tank with water and let it sit without moving for five
minutes.  The shadow areas continue building density for the entire 5 minute
soak.  The highlights burn out the developer in contact on the emulsion at
once, and their development is arrested.  Repeat the cycle 3 times.  that is
how you can both push and pull process a negative at the same time, further
information is in Ansel Adam's book "The Negative", he calls it water bath
development.  The only way that I know to accomplish this with a digital
camera is to make a series of exposures and put them together in photoshop.

As to scanning, here is a scanning tutorial I put up:
http://historicphotoarchive.com/stuff/kodachrome2.html

best of luck
Tom Robinson

Tom,

Depleted development is a fun trick.
I often use high dilutions of Rodinal, and minimal agitation, to 
achieve that same effect.

John Toles
http://www.dragonflyprinting.com/
http://www.dragonflygallery.ca/

On May 13, 2004, at 2:40 PM, HPA wrote:

> Here is an example:  you take a night photograph showing brilliant
> streetlights and deep shadows.  To develop this negative for maximum
> quality, you want to push process the low values (shadows) because 
> they need
> all the help they can get.  However, the highlights are already 
> over-exposed
> and need "pull development" so the emulsion doesn't become opaque.  To
> accomplish this, you put the film in developer for about 20 seconds, 
> then
> place it in a tank with water and let it sit without moving for five
> minutes.  The shadow areas continue building density for the entire 5 
> minute
> soak.  The highlights burn out the developer in contact on the 
> emulsion at
> once, and their development is arrested.  Repeat the cycle 3 times.  
> that is
> how you can both push and pull process a negative at the same time, 
> further
> information is in Ansel Adam's book "The Negative", he calls it water 
> bath
> development.  The only way that I know to accomplish this with a 
> digital
> camera is to make a series of exposures and put them together in 
> photoshop.

Hello,
 Someone asked about which B/W film we used for the capture. I use 
Ilford XP2 Super because I find it a higher contrast film then the 
Kodak. It has been years since I tried the Kodak so perhaps the film 
isn't so flat anymore. Most of my images tend towards high contrast 
and it's what I like in B&W images. I don't like flat B&W images but 
that's only my personal preference, others may. To see some of my 
images my website is finally online again after finding a new host. 
I still have a couple of things to correct but it will at least give 
you some idea of my preferences towards B&W. 

Kindest regards,


Tim

www.theportraitsofnature.com

Hello John,

What is the best way to put the images together in Photoshop?

Perry

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dragonfly Imaging & Printing 
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 5/14/2004 8:14:28 AM 
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re:Film vs Digital Capture


Tom,

Depleted development is a fun trick.
I often use high dilutions of Rodinal, and minimal agitation, to 
achieve that same effect.

John Toles
http://www.dragonflyprinting.com/
http://www.dragonflygallery.ca/

On May 13, 2004, at 2:40 PM, HPA wrote:

> Here is an example:  you take a night photograph showing brilliant
> streetlights and deep shadows.  To develop this negative for maximum
> quality, you want to push process the low values (shadows) because 
> they need
> all the help they can get.  However, the highlights are already 
> over-exposed
> and need "pull development" so the emulsion doesn't become opaque.  To
> accomplish this, you put the film in developer for about 20 seconds, 
> then
> place it in a tank with water and let it sit without moving for five
> minutes.  The shadow areas continue building density for the entire 5 
> minute
> soak.  The highlights burn out the developer in contact on the 
> emulsion at
> once, and their development is arrested.  Repeat the cycle 3 times.  
> that is
> how you can both push and pull process a negative at the same time, 
> further
> information is in Ansel Adam's book "The Negative", he calls it water 
> bath
> development.  The only way that I know to accomplish this with a 
> digital
> camera is to make a series of exposures and put them together in 
> photoshop.



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 Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT






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]