Digital BW, The Print

Since there is absolutlely no B&W photo content now I won't miss
anything. Any body wnat to join me? C'mon let's get back to the B&W
printing discussion.....

Ol' Don

"Don" <elixirs4me@y...> wrote:
> Since there is absolutlely no B&W photo content now I won't miss
> anything. Any body wnat to join me?

No, I am sorry, but I do not want to join you. 

> C'mon let's get back to the B&W printing discussion.....

Exactly what I intend to do. In the time you've been "not reading" and "not posting", I've made several on topic and useful posts. This increases the ratio of signal to noise.

You should give that a try. Sorry to be harsh, but if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Ciao!

Joe

On 25 Sep 2004 at 19:52, Don wrote:

> Since there is absolutlely no B&W photo content now I won't miss
> anything. Any body wnat to join me? C'mon let's get back to the B&W
> printing discussion.....
> 

Uh no, but the idea Don is to post on topic discussions, bot to berate someone elses 
OT discussion, by starting another OT discussion.......

Okay, here is a question for you all, to get this back on topic.  I have two film 
cameras, and it's a good thing, because one of them is having a problem, and 
needs to go to the shop :-(  

Normally I use one to shoot B&W and the other to shoot Colour, obviously not 
possible, with only one camera.  However I have long thought that B&W is a state of 
mind.  In other words if you compose a scene, as if it were being shot on B&W film, 
then even though the film (or sensor) is colour, you can scan (if film) sremove the 
colour and print, there will be no difference in the print, from one that is shot on 
B&W film in the first place.

Comments, anyone?

W

In theory B&W from color could be better, or at least easier.  Certainly easier to select a 
"red flower" for ex. while it is still red.

And you can apply color filters (deep red for sky) post  exposure, etc.  All that being said, I 
haven't really tried it much.  Don't know about grain (or equivalent in color), resolution, 
etc.

Need to be really careful how you "remove the color though" so as not to lose mood and 
impact.

Scott

> Okay, here is a question for you all, to get this back on topic.  I have two film 
> 
> Normally I use one to shoot B&W and the other to shoot Colour, obviously not 
> possible, with only one camera.  However I have long thought that B&W is a state of 
> mind.  In other words if you compose a scene, as if it were being shot on B&W film, 
> then even though the film (or sensor) is colour, you can scan (if film) sremove the 
> colour and print, there will be no difference in the print, from one that is shot on 
> B&W film in the first place.
> 
> Comments, anyone?
> 
> W

Wogster,

> Normally I use one to shoot B&W and the other to shoot Colour,
> obviously not
> possible, with only one camera.  However I have long thought that
> B&W is a state of
> mind.  In other words if you compose a scene, as if it were being
> shot on B&W film,
> then even though the film (or sensor) is colour, you can scan (if
> film) sremove the
> colour and print, there will be no difference in the print, from
> one that is shot on
> B&W film in the first place.

There are a couple of reasons I use B&W film, and do not convert from color,
much less shoot B&W with a Bayer pattern sensor.  One is, the
"characteristic" grain/look of the particular film.  I like Tri-X a *real*
LOT, I also LIKE Plus-X a real lot.  I could possibly, at least digitally,
create something *like* the look/characteristic of these films, but why?
It's time I don't have to spend if I simply shoot with my film of choice in
the first place.

The other reason is tonality.  The B&W films have different (IMO better)
tonal response.  They allow me to get near 10 stops (or more) of scene
density on the film, with the tonal separation in the areas I want, with
little to no effort...and I can control the development to give me the
results I want.  With color film, this is either not really possible (as you
get color shifts that you might not want), or at least, it's more work.

Regards,

Austin

Since I got out of undergrad I've been shooting color film instead of
my favored Tmax 100, mostly because its cheaper to get color processed
by a lab, but I also like the fact that I can simulate using filters
(something I never bothered with while shooting B&W).  

Funny thing is I have the hardest time giving up the color image now.
I've never really been into color photography, nor have I ever been
any good at it ( I believe I got C's in my color classes).  Must be
something psychological-- my roommate is having the same delima.

I don't think this really relates to your post, sorry. I just felt
like sharing I guess-- it is Sunday after all.
john

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "The Wogster"
<wogsterca@y...> wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2004 at 19:52, Don wrote:
> 
> > Since there is absolutlely no B&W photo content now I won't miss
> > anything. Any body wnat to join me? C'mon let's get back to the B&W
> > printing discussion.....
> > 
> 
> Uh no, but the idea Don is to post on topic discussions, bot to
berate someone elses 
> OT discussion, by starting another OT discussion.......
> 
> Okay, here is a question for you all, to get this back on topic.  I
have two film 
> cameras, and it's a good thing, because one of them is having a
problem, and 
> needs to go to the shop :-(  
> 
> Normally I use one to shoot B&W and the other to shoot Colour,
obviously not 
> possible, with only one camera.  However I have long thought that
B&W is a state of 
> mind.  In other words if you compose a scene, as if it were being
shot on B&W film, 
> then even though the film (or sensor) is colour, you can scan (if
film) sremove the 
> colour and print, there will be no difference in the print, from one
that is shot on 

> B&W film in the first place.
> 
> Comments, anyone?
> 
> W

> Normally I use one to shoot B&W and the other to shoot Colour,
> obviously not
> possible, with only one camera.  However I have long thought that
> B&W is a state of
> mind.  In other words if you compose a scene, as if it were being
> shot on B&W film,
> then even though the film (or sensor) is colour, you can scan (if
> film) sremove the
> colour and print, there will be no difference in the print, from
> one that is shot on
> B&W film in the first place.

I use black and white film because I develop it myself. I've done my film
speed and development testing for T Max 100 and HP5+ so I use the zone
system for exposure and development and hopefully start with the best
possible negative. Then of course there's the cost of using a lab to develop
color film vs. the pennies it costs to develop black and white yourself. But
the main reason isn't the cost, it's the control I have over the development
of black and white film that I would lose if I used color and turned
development over to a lab.








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

B&W film . . . as pointed out it has a mucher greater tonal range (10+) stops as opposed to colour, and the grain structure IS appealing . . . maybe because many of us grew up with it and lump it in the same category as "mom's apple pie". Colour film, dye based ones at least . . . Kodachrome, and Kodak and Ilford's B&W chromogenics films don't have a grain structure . . . they have what used to be called dye clouds . . . (all other transparency, E6 films, do have a silver grain structure). The dye cloud gives a softer effect than sharp grain. While the chromogenic film from Kodak and Ilford are neat because you can always drop them at a one hour "lab" (which by the way IS becoming an endangered species), they too suffer from a lack of tonal range over a "true" black and white film.

I have always thought that B&W was a truer vision of the real world than colour film gives . . . maybe my head is just screwed on backwards, or upside down ;- ). One of my favourite combos for personal work used to be shooting tech pan in 4x5 . . . a true nightmare. The film is so thin that it literally flaps in the film holder (thus compromising focus), so you were required to load it with another sheet, fogged, and processed, as a backing to allow it to sit in the holder with some rigidity (an awful task to manipulate in the field). Ultimately I gave up smashing my head against a brick wall and started to shoot tech pan in a roll back. Today, I use Fuji Acros and Agfapan 25 (I know they don't make it anymore, but I have a couple hundred rolls in my deep freezer, and no, nobody gets any but me). Everything developed in Rodinal, a developer that gives an acute grain . . . which photoshop can come close to, but it just ain't the same thing. As to the time taken for developing film . . . do it in the right mood and it becomes an almost Zen-like affair, restful, calm . . . and a pleasant diversion from being glued to a CRT. Good exercise for the wrist also.

all the best
Paul Aparycki


  There are a couple of reasons I use B&W film, and do not convert from color,
  much less shoot B&W with a Bayer pattern sensor.  One is, the
  "characteristic" grain/look of the particular film.  I like Tri-X a *real*
  LOT, I also LIKE Plus-X a real lot.  I could possibly, at least digitally,
  create something *like* the look/characteristic of these films, but why?
  It's time I don't have to spend if I simply shoot with my film of choice in
  the first place.

  The other reason is tonality.  The B&W films have different (IMO better)
  tonal response.  They allow me to get near 10 stops (or more) of scene
  density on the film, with the tonal separation in the areas I want, with
  little to no effort...and I can control the development to give me the
  results I want.  With color film, this is either not really possible (as you
  get color shifts that you might not want), or at least, it's more work.

  Regards,

  Austin

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

> There are a couple of reasons I use B&W film, and do not convert 
from color,
> much less shoot B&W with a Bayer pattern sensor.  One is, the
> "characteristic" grain/look of the particular film.  I like Tri-X 
a *real*
> LOT, I also LIKE Plus-X a real lot.  I could possibly, at least 
digitally,
> create something *like* the look/characteristic of these films, 
but why?
> It's time I don't have to spend if I simply shoot with my film of 
choice in
> the first place.
> 

I used to shoot PX and TX always loved them, especially in HC 110 or 
D76 1:1. But now that I am difital I have SO much more control over 
the look and feel. And I won't let anyone tell me I can't fool even 
an expert if I want to . But who wants to? 
There are so many ways to do everything in Pshop, and I use the 
channel mixer method, which gives me the options of making the image 
look as if it is shot through any of the cool - blue or green- or 
hot- red or orange- filters. Do you really like grain? play with 
noise for awhile, and guess what?

Chris Jones

On 26 Sep 2004 at 15:14, weareallsosmall wrote:

> Since I got out of undergrad I've been shooting color film instead of
> my favored Tmax 100, mostly because its cheaper to get color processed
> by a lab, but I also like the fact that I can simulate using filters
> (something I never bothered with while shooting B&W).  
> 
> Funny thing is I have the hardest time giving up the color image now.
> I've never really been into color photography, nor have I ever been
> any good at it ( I believe I got C's in my color classes).  Must be
> something psychological-- my roommate is having the same delima.

I think it depends, a color image and a B&W image, require a different way of 
thinking, with B&W the idea is tonality, shadows, light patterns, without regard to 
whether something is red or green, but it will end up grey anyway.  Colour is mostly 
dependant on colours, your less worried about the shade of a shadow, but the colour 
of the shade in the shadow.  This means an image intended to be B&W, might look 
awful in colour, but looks better when the colour is removed.

This is why colorized movies often look awful, and many people prefer the original 
B&W version. 

W

Hi Chris,

> I used to shoot PX and TX always loved them, especially in HC 110 or
> D76 1:1.

I develop exclusively in D-76 1:1.

> But now that I am difital I have SO much more control over
> the look and feel.

Hum...how so?  I scan my film, and can do anything to it that you can to any
digital image...but don't need to, as they come out exactly as I want them
by simply developing, scanning and printing with quadtone inks...except the
occasional dust spot which PS so kindly takes care of...I don't even need to
sharpen.

> And I won't let anyone tell me I can't fool even
> an expert if I want to. But who wants to?

I would take issue with that, there certainly are deficiencies in using a
Bayer pattern sensor (and digital in general) over film that are quite
noticeable.  Now, if you shot with a monochromatic sensor in the first
place, that would make a difference, but still doesn't quite reach the
dynamic range of properly exposed/developed B&W film, and you have to spend
a bundle to get the amount of data available on a medium format negative.
If you are making small prints (4x6) then sure, I won't argue that point.
It's when you get to 11x14 or larger that the difference starts to become
substantial in my experience (and I have some rather high end digital
equipment).

> There are so many ways to do everything in Pshop, and I use the
> channel mixer method, which gives me the options of making the image
> look as if it is shot through any of the cool - blue or green- or
> hot- red or orange- filters. Do you really like grain? play with
> noise for awhile, and guess what?

I simply scan and print.  That seems like a lot less work to me ;-)

If your method satisfies your needs is what you should use, of course.  Each
has it's advantages and disadvantages, and using the "tools" that give you
the best results for your requirements is what's right for you.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Austin-

 Hum...how so?  I scan my film, and can do anything to it that you 
an to any
> digital image...but don't need to, as they come out exactly as I 
want them
> by simply developing, scanning and printing with quadtone 
inks...except the
> occasional dust spot which PS so kindly takes care of...I don't 
even need to
> sharpen.

I use a Kodak Proback on a 645 Mamiya- it produces--without 
upsampling--a 47meg tiff, 13.5x13.5 inches @300dpi, that can be 
enlarged in Pshop easily to 40x40" with remarkable sharpness.

So when you scan, you get the grain, which is not there in the real 
world. My 40" and larger prints have no grain, and with RAW 
processing in Photoshop CS, no artifacting or color fringing, and 
are arguably sharper than what you would get with a good 8x10 camera 
film scan. 


> I would take issue with that, there certainly are deficiencies in 
using a
> Bayer pattern sensor (and digital in general) over film that are 
quite
> noticeable.  

Austin, what are the deficiencies?


> I simply scan and print.  That seems like a lot less work to me ;-)


Hey, it doesn't take me to do my "process work" as it does to scan 
and spot a neg.

> 
the "tools" that give you
> the best results for your requirements is what's right for you.
> 
Absolutley. We all have a unique workflow because we all are 
different critters.Enjoy! 
> 
Thanks,

Chris Jones
Delancey, NY

Hi Chris,

>  Hum...how so?  I scan my film, and can do anything to it that you
> an to any
> > digital image...but don't need to, as they come out exactly as I
> want them
> > by simply developing, scanning and printing with quadtone
> inks...except the
> > occasional dust spot which PS so kindly takes care of...I don't
> even need to
> > sharpen.
>
> I use a Kodak Proback on a 645 Mamiya- it produces--without
> upsampling--a 47meg tiff, 13.5x13.5 inches @300dpi, that can be
> enlarged in Pshop easily to 40x40" with remarkable sharpness.

I agree, one of my backs is a 7k x 7k scanning back, and can make some
spectacular enlargements from that.  I have never said the results aren't
spectacular...but don't confuse sharpness with image fidelity (which is
commonly done with people when referring to how "good" digital purportedly
is).  A two pixel camera will give you the sharpest image you can get, yet
has no detail...so sharpness is really not a good indicator of image
fidelity.

> So when you scan, you get the grain, which is not there in the real
> world.

And when you use digital, you get pixelation, which is not there in the real
world.  Both digital and film have "resolution".  The resolution of film per
unit area is greater than that of digital (for the same ISO), at this point
in time (and will probably continue to be so for a while, since when you
reduce the sensor element size, you increase the noise substantially).

> My 40" and larger prints have no grain, and with RAW
> processing in Photoshop CS, no artifacting or color fringing, and
> are arguably sharper than what you would get with a good 8x10 camera
> film scan.

If you are getting only 300PPI over a 13.5" span, that means your back is 4k
by 4k, and 4k over 40" gives you only 100 PPI to the printer.  That's a bit
on the low side.  My experience shows that properly done MF film will
contain more usable image information than 16M Bayer pattern sensors.

> > I would take issue with that, there certainly are deficiencies in
> using a
> > Bayer pattern sensor (and digital in general) over film that are
> quite
> > noticeable.
>
> Austin, what are the deficiencies?

In a nutshell, dynamic range and the Bayer pattern (color fidelity).  The
Bayer pattern sensors only contain %50 sensor elements that are green, %25
blue and %25 red.  That means the color information (some %66 of the final
data!) is interpolated by a Bayer pattern reconciliation algorithm.  Some
algorithms are better than others, and some images degrade less than others,
but the degradation is there.  This, of course, is a reduction in actual
image fidelity over having %100 of all colors...and as a note, the Foveon
does not solve this problem very well, but that is a different story.

Also, unless your back is monochrome (or three shot, or uses a splitter),
you are converting a Bayer pattern image to grayscale (and we are talking
B&W here ;-), which lowers the fidelity even more.

> > I simply scan and print.  That seems like a lot less work to me ;-)
>
>
> Hey, it doesn't take me to do my "process work" as it does to scan
> and spot a neg.

I *rarely* have to spot...that is a matter of environment and practice (as
in, keeping a clean lab), and clicking the mouse button is hardly much work.
If you are fiddling with anything aside from setpoints and tonal curves,
then your process involves more "work" than mine does (most of the time that
is).

> the "tools" that give you
> > the best results for your requirements is what's right for you.
> >
> Absolutley. We all have a unique workflow because we all are
> different critters.Enjoy!

And a some of it is "emotional" as well.  Some people WANT digital (can be
said equally for film as well) to be better than it actually is so as to
justify their use of such.  It has amazed me that for so many years, people
spent so much time getting the highest quality from film/lenses/development
etc. and yet they are so willing to compromise when it comes to digital.  I
am in no way saying that related to what you have said, or any impression I
have of what you said...simply that people, in general, see what they want
to see...and that is true in the digital vs film "debate" as well.

This wasn't supposed to be a digital vs film discussion...

Regards,

Austin

.
> 
> This wasn't supposed to be a digital vs film discussion...

oops!

Hi Austin-

Thanks for all the info. I have struggled with many of these same 
issues back in the days of film- not from a technical viewpoint, 
which seems to be your strength, but from an intuitive one. Back 
when I shot film, (which I have done since 1967) I would look at 
Bresson's and Winogrands, and other 35mm shooters and then I looked 
at 4x5 shooters, and then I looked at 8x10's etc. One could keep 
going on, but at some point we have to just make pictures... it only 
has to make sense to me from an artistic point of view, ie, a grainy 
out of focus blurred Cartier-Bresson is far superior to ??? in other 
words, the sharpness or detail or any other technical aspect finally 
has to relent to the subjective artistic stuff. (Or does it?)

The same goes for digital. I wanted effective photographs, at 
whatever res or detail, and this kodak back certainly produces them. 
I was never able to "see" effectively with a view camera. Despite 
many attempts through the years, both professionally and for 
personal work, I could never feel comfortable with 4x5 or 8x10's. 
This digital camera is relatively fast and easy to use, and gives me 
images that are artistically successful. 

So what is next for the digital world? I would love to find a 
digital back that was truly high resolution and 'detailed'perhaps a 
cluster of these chips that I have now, maybe a 1x3 array to make a 
panorama...but until then, I'll keep making images, with whatever 
camera I have...I remember one of my most successful projects was 
shot with the plastic Holga. 

What kind of work do you do? And what format?

Thanks,

Chris

It's been a while since I've posted to this group, hopefully this 
message will get through. I agree B&W can be a state of mind, and one 
that especially needs to be addressed when you're shooting digital. 
After all, what's the difference if you remove the color before or 
after you make your exposure? For me, I find when I know I have B&W 
film in the camera, I tend to see in B&W, and it's difficult to make 
that B&W capture when I know I can always opt out for the color shot. 
Then once it's in color, I question why I'm making it B&W? This is why 
I've lately gone for B&W film instead of using my digital, when I know 
I'm shooting for B&W.

As far as film is concerned, I think images that are converted from 
color get a little mushy on the sharpness compared to those shot on 
B&W, due to multiple emulsion layers.

Steve

Steve German PhotoGraphics
   Equestrian Photography
      Graphic Design
         Photo Restoration
             http://sgphoto.net/

On Sep 26, 2004, at 7:35 AM,  "The Wogster" <wogsterca@...> wrote:

> Normally I use one to shoot B&W and the other to shoot Colour, 
> obviously not
> possible, with only one camera.  However I have long thought that B&W 
> is a state of
> mind.  In other words if you compose a scene, as if it were being shot 
> on B&W film,
> then even though the film (or sensor) is colour, you can scan (if 
> film) sremove the
> colour and print, there will be no difference in the print, from one 
> that is shot on
> B&W film in the first place.
>

On 27 Sep 2004 at 5:05, cjphoto1 wrote:

> .
> > 
> > This wasn't supposed to be a digital vs film discussion...
> 
> oops!
> 

Actually it can be, I started the thread, as B&W versus Colour film, but don't mind 
changing the terminology to say B&W versus Colour capture.

> Thanks for all the info. I have struggled with many of these same 
> issues back in the days of film- not from a technical viewpoint, 
> which seems to be your strength, but from an intuitive one. Back 
> when I shot film, (which I have done since 1967) I would look at 
> Bresson's and Winogrands, and other 35mm shooters and then I looked 
> at 4x5 shooters, and then I looked at 8x10's etc. One could keep 
> going on, but at some point we have to just make pictures... it only 
> has to make sense to me from an artistic point of view, ie, a grainy 
> out of focus blurred Cartier-Bresson is far superior to ??? in other 
> words, the sharpness or detail or any other technical aspect finally 
> has to relent to the subjective artistic stuff. (Or does it?)

In many cases B&W is more artistic, whether you like a grainy image like pushed 
Tri-X or a smooth grainless image like Pan-F.  The results are what matter, however 
you can often compensate for some things in post processing with colour capture.  
For example if you want to use a filter, but do not have the filter handy, for the lens 
you using, then you can use Photoshop, or another similar tool, to apply the filter 
later on.   

W








> 
> The same goes for digital. I wanted effective photographs, at 
> whatever res or detail, and this kodak back certainly produces them. 
> I was never able to "see" effectively with a view camera. Despite 
> many attempts through the years, both professionally and for 
> personal work, I could never feel comfortable with 4x5 or 8x10's. 
> This digital camera is relatively fast and easy to use, and gives me 
> images that are artistically successful. 
> 
> So what is next for the digital world? I would love to find a 
> digital back that was truly high resolution and 'detailed'perhaps a 
> cluster of these chips that I have now, maybe a 1x3 array to make a 
> panorama...but until then, I'll keep making images, with whatever 
> camera I have...I remember one of my most successful projects was 
> shot with the plastic Holga. 
> 
> What kind of work do you do? And what format?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
>

Hi Wogster,

> > > This wasn't supposed to be a digital vs film discussion...
> >
> > oops!
> >
>
> Actually it can be, I started the thread, as B&W versus Colour
> film...

The subject says "B&W FROM colour..." or was that not the intention?

> but don't mind
> changing the terminology to say B&W versus Colour capture.

Agreed, but that's an entirely different subject, and I assume you mean B&W
capture vs color capture...which this topic did in fact wander into, amongst
other things.

Regards,

Austin

On 27 Sep 2004 at 11:35, Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Hi Wogster,
> 
> > > > This wasn't supposed to be a digital vs film discussion...
> > >
> > > oops!
> > >
> >
> > Actually it can be, I started the thread, as B&W versus Colour
> > film...
> 
> The subject says "B&W FROM colour..." or was that not the intention?
> 
> > but don't mind
> > changing the terminology to say B&W versus Colour capture.
> 
> Agreed, but that's an entirely different subject, and I assume you mean B&W
> capture vs color capture...which this topic did in fact wander into, amongst
> other things.
> 

Capture could infer either photo-chemical or digital capture, the question is just as 
apt either way, although it was intended on film, simply because I still use film, at 
least this year......

W