Digital BW, The Print

In a previous post regarding the use of digital camera, Tony wrote:

"...I would appreciate any thoughts on the use of a digital camera and
feasability of using one to get respectable prints up to 13x19."

I was waiting (hope i'm not the only one) for digital camera users to
chime in with their experience on A3+ b&w prints from digital files
but the discussion went into another diection which is ok considering
the background of the question.

So if I may, I'd like to ask those with experience relating to the
above question if they would share it with us.
TIA

Hello Andre,

>"...I would appreciate any thoughts on the use of a digital camera
>and feasability of using one to get respectable prints up to 13x19."

Some thoughts and observations:

1) I am using an 8mp digicam (Canon Pro-1) and find the images can
make excellent 11x14 prints (actual image size on 13x19 paper).  I
have also made 11x14 from sample 6mp images downloaded from dpreview.
 However, I favor 8 mp because it leaves room for cropping, while 6mp
seems borderline.  I recently cropped an 8mp image about 15% and still
was able to make an excellent 11x14.  I would recommend 8mp as a
minimum for making this size print on a regular basis.  

2) My 8mp images print 11x14 at about 230 ppi.  However, my Pro-1 has
a 3:4 aspect ratio.  An 8mp DSLR image with 2:3 ratio may produce
different ppi depending on cropping differences.  

3) Bottom line, though, is the bigger the sensor the better the
results.  My Pro-1 11x14s look sort of like what I'd expect from a 645
neg.  If you want better quality then you better get at least a bigger
sensor, if not more pixels.  Canon makes 3 8mp cams, all with
different size sensors, plus the "big guy" 16mp 1Ds, so choose your
weapon:

Camera   Mp     Sensor            List Price 
------------------------------------------------------
Pro-1     8     8.8 x  6.6 mm    $ 1,000 with lens
20d       8    22.5 x 15.0       $ 1,500  + lenses
1D        8    28.7 x 19.1       $ 4,500  + lenses
1Ds      16    36.0 x 24.0       $ 8,000  + lenses


3) Because there is no film grain, the enlargement constraints we are
used to with film no longer apply.  There are constraints, just that
they are different.  Assuming enough resolution to avoid pixellation,
I find I can enlarge digicam images to a greater degree than I could
film images.  The sensor in my Pro-1 is about the size of a
fingernail.  That it can produce sharp grainless 11x14's is a miracle
to me (it should be noted that the Pro-1 has a superb "L" class
lens).  

4) We lose the ability to use different films for different effects. 
 We must try to achieve the desired results with software after the
fact.  I was a dedicated Tri-X user, and found I could not get the
Tri-X "look" no matter how hard I tried.  I could emulate the spectral
sensitivity, but could not imitate what the Tri-X grain gives an
image.  BUT, I also found I could "get over it" and learn to like what
I do get.  So basically you have to let go of the past. 

5) An exhilarating sense of freedom comes over you as the realization
sinks in that you can shoot as much as you want without concern for
film/processing costs.

6) I'm finding that a digicam + printing with a 2200 and Eboni based
inks gives very satisfying results.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Here's another try at that chart.  The &#*$%!% html can't handle
spaces!
Let's see if dots do the trick...

Camera...Mp.....Sensor............List Price
------------------------------------------------------
Pro-1.....8.....8.8 x  6.6 mm....$ 1,000 with lens
20d.......8....22.5 x 15.0.......$ 1,500..+ lenses
1D........8....28.7 x 19.1.......$ 4,500..+ lenses
1Ds......16....36.0 x 24.0.......$ 8,000..+ lenses

>  We must try to achieve the desired results with software after the
> fact.  I was a dedicated Tri-X user, and found I could not get the
> Tri-X "look" no matter how hard I tried.  I could emulate the 
spectral
> sensitivity, but could not imitate what the Tri-X grain gives an
> image.  BUT, I also found I could "get over it" and learn to like 
what
> I do get.  So basically you have to let go of the past. 


Hi Clayton,

Resolution aside, I worry about two problems with digital capture for 
B&W.  First, as I understand it, a digital sensor reacts much like 
slide flim: a range limited to about five stops and a need to expose 
for the highlights.  Second, again as I understand it (and I may not!)
the chip's sensitivity is linear while the progression of f stops is 
not. Thus, close to half of the chip's "range" (not a technical term) 
is taken up by the widest opening and by the time you get to the 
fifth and smallest stop, not much is left.  The net effect of both of 
these issue should be a constraint on tonal range and a loss of 
detail in the shadows, vis-a-vis film.  

Am I wrong?  Have you found this to be a problem?

Steve

Hi Steve

Two comments:

1.  Looking at the second part of your question, this is why we introduce
gamma into the RAW conversion process.

2. There is plenty of tonal range in today's 12 bit digital cameras.

Take a wander through Normen' site here:

http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html

It is not hard stuff and I think all your questions will be answered.  The
only digital camera I have used (other than a pocket one) is the PhaseOne
back.  It has plenty of dynamic range believe me.  My 1Ds MK II has arrived
in Washington DC and I will pick it up in 2 weeks.  It won't be as good as
the latest P25 but it sure as hell costs a lot less!

Steve

> From: Stephen Kobrin <kobrins@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:36:30 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Digital camera again
> 
> 
> 
>>  We must try to achieve the desired results with software after the
>> fact.  I was a dedicated Tri-X user, and found I could not get the
>> Tri-X "look" no matter how hard I tried.  I could emulate the
> spectral
>> sensitivity, but could not imitate what the Tri-X grain gives an
>> image.  BUT, I also found I could "get over it" and learn to like
> what
>> I do get.  So basically you have to let go of the past.
> 
> 
> Hi Clayton,
> 
> Resolution aside, I worry about two problems with digital capture for
> B&W.  First, as I understand it, a digital sensor reacts much like
> slide flim: a range limited to about five stops and a need to expose
> for the highlights.  Second, again as I understand it (and I may not!)
> the chip's sensitivity is linear while the progression of f stops is
> not. Thus, close to half of the chip's "range" (not a technical term)
> is taken up by the widest opening and by the time you get to the
> fifth and smallest stop, not much is left.  The net effect of both of
> these issue should be a constraint on tonal range and a loss of
> detail in the shadows, vis-a-vis film.
> 
> Am I wrong?  Have you found this to be a problem?
> 
> Steve

Hi Steve,

Hope Clayton doesn't mind my jumping in on this discussion, too...

Yes, sensors do display a linear response to incoming light, but that response is more like negative film than slide film. Additionally, because the sensor doesn't have a "toe" or "shoulder" to its "characteristic curve" you actually realize better results on both ends. I'm not sure about the prosumer cameras like the Canon Pro1, but with high-end equipment like the Phase One P25 back, Betterlight scan back, and probably the new Canon 1Ds you're looking at 10 - 12 stops of dynamic range. Throw in the fact that you have very clean images to work with (no grain, etc) and our old measurement factors start to crumble. FYI, from what I've read the new Phase One P25 back (22 megapixels) is seriously challenging drum scanned 4x5! I don't know this for fact because I don't own one, but it certainly gives us an idea of where this technology is header. Hopefully, someday this top-o-line equipment will be affordable to the average consumer.

Alan Huntley

> 
> From: "Stephen Kobrin" <kobrins@...>
> Date: 2004/12/09 Thu AM 08:36:30 EST
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Digital camera again
> 
> 
> 
> >  We must try to achieve the desired results with software after the
> > fact.  I was a dedicated Tri-X user, and found I could not get the
> > Tri-X "look" no matter how hard I tried.  I could emulate the 
> spectral
> > sensitivity, but could not imitate what the Tri-X grain gives an
> > image.  BUT, I also found I could "get over it" and learn to like 
> what
> > I do get.  So basically you have to let go of the past. 
> 
> 
> Hi Clayton,
> 
> Resolution aside, I worry about two problems with digital capture for 
> B&W.  First, as I understand it, a digital sensor reacts much like 
> slide flim: a range limited to about five stops and a need to expose 
> for the highlights.  Second, again as I understand it (and I may not!)
> the chip's sensitivity is linear while the progression of f stops is 
> not. Thus, close to half of the chip's "range" (not a technical term) 
> is taken up by the widest opening and by the time you get to the 
> fifth and smallest stop, not much is left.  The net effect of both of 
> these issue should be a constraint on tonal range and a loss of 
> detail in the shadows, vis-a-vis film.  
> 
> Am I wrong?  Have you found this to be a problem?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:
 
> 1) I am using an 8mp digicam (Canon Pro-1) and find the images can
> make excellent 11x14 prints (actual image size on 13x19 paper).  

I'm pleasantly surprised about this: 11x14" prints from a digicam.
That's very interesting. 

> 3) Bottom line, though, is the bigger the sensor the better the
> results.  My Pro-1 11x14s look sort of like what I'd expect from a 645

This is getting even better. However, I usually print to 12.75" on the
short side. Would you say that the image will hold at that size or is
there a point where it will deteriorate really fast. And since you do
not mention it, I gather that you do not have any problems with print
tonality from digital images ?

> 
> 4) We lose the ability to use different films for different effects. 
>  We must try to achieve the desired results with software after the
> fact.  I was a dedicated Tri-X user, and found I could not get the
> Tri-X "look" no matter how hard I tried.  I could emulate the spectral
> sensitivity, but could not imitate what the Tri-X grain gives an
> image.  

I've read numerous times that the images from a digital camera is
somewhat linear, whatever that means. Would you say that applying an
S-curve in Photoshop helps restore some analog (film) look about the
image ?

Also, do you have a favorite method of converting to b&w or do you
choose from many depending on the image.

> 
> 6) I'm finding that a digicam + printing with a 2200 and Eboni based
> inks gives very satisfying results.
> 
I've been holding on to a 6x45 camera in the hopes of printing past
A3+ in the future. However, I may not get that Epson 4000 after all.
For the time being, I think i'll stay with 12.75"x17" size prints and
increase the size of the frames from 20"x24" to 22"x26" and see how
that goes.

Regards,
Andre

> From: Andre <am1000@...>
 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read numerous times that the images from a digital camera is
> somewhat linear, whatever that means. Would you say that applying an
> S-curve in Photoshop helps restore some analog (film) look about the
> image ?
> 


Andre

If you are going to work in digital you really should spend some time
understanding this - it will really help you put some of the jargon in
perspective.  All digital is linear.  The pixels in a plasma or lcd display
act in a linear fashion - they illuminate in direct proportion to the bit
value they are fed.  In order to get around this, we introduce gamma (a
fancy name for curvature rather than linearity).  By applying a gamma
function, when we convert RAW pixel data to RGB whether it be a camera or
display, we align these devices with things like photo paper or film which
are not linear in their luminance vs exposure and the way the eye sees.
These products exhibit curvature when luminance is plotted against exposure
(pixel value) but they ARE linear if you look at the LOG of each side of the
equation.  This is why when you calibrate your monitor you must decide what
gamma you want, and when you do a scan you choose a gamma, and why when
doing a RAW pixel to RGB conversion you choose a gamma.

[All LOG is is the first derivative of an exponential (ie curved) equation.
It gives you rate of change of an exponential function.  You may remember
this from your maths in high school.]

The single best summary of exactly this topic that I have seen is, as I
mentioned before, on Norman Koren's site, specifically this page:

http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html

It goes through all the issues that have recently been dicussed in this
thread:  gamma, film vs digital, tonal range, how the eye sees, and the
practical application of all of this to using an S curve in RAW pixel value
conversion to RGB.

I would also read the two bits headed up "Gamma and Black Level" and "Why
gamma?"  on this page:

http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

I am in no way affiliated with Norman! But I really did find the stuff at
these two locations very very informative.  A lot of the myth attached to
the jargon disappears.  Go through it once and if you don't get it put it
down for a while and then go through it again.  I can't emphasise enough the
value of doing this.

Steve

Thanks Steve and others who replied,

Do your arguments apply to top-end consumer cameras such as the Canon 
20d?  Or do we have to wait a while until the technology used in the 
pro cameras -- and the digital backs -- is available at 
a "reasonable" price?

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Hi Steve
> 
> Two comments:
> 
> 1.  Looking at the second part of your question, this is why we 
introduce
> gamma into the RAW conversion process.
> 
> 2. There is plenty of tonal range in today's 12 bit digital cameras.
> 
> Take a wander through Normen' site here:
> 
> http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html
> 
> It is not hard stuff and I think all your questions will be 
answered.  The
> only digital camera I have used (other than a pocket one) is the 
PhaseOne
> back.  It has plenty of dynamic range believe me.  My 1Ds MK II has 
arrived
> in Washington DC and I will pick it up in 2 weeks.  It won't be as 
good as
> the latest P25 but it sure as hell costs a lot less!
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> > From: Stephen Kobrin <kobrins@w...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:36:30 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Digital camera again
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>  We must try to achieve the desired results with software after 
the
> >> fact.  I was a dedicated Tri-X user, and found I could not get 
the
> >> Tri-X "look" no matter how hard I tried.  I could emulate the
> > spectral
> >> sensitivity, but could not imitate what the Tri-X grain gives an
> >> image.  BUT, I also found I could "get over it" and learn to like
> > what
> >> I do get.  So basically you have to let go of the past.
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Clayton,
> > 
> > Resolution aside, I worry about two problems with digital capture 
for
> > B&W.  First, as I understand it, a digital sensor reacts much like
> > slide flim: a range limited to about five stops and a need to 
expose
> > for the highlights.  Second, again as I understand it (and I may 
not!)
> > the chip's sensitivity is linear while the progression of f stops 
is
> > not. Thus, close to half of the chip's "range" (not a technical 
term)
> > is taken up by the widest opening and by the time you get to the
> > fifth and smallest stop, not much is left.  The net effect of 
both of

> > these issue should be a constraint on tonal range and a loss of
> > detail in the shadows, vis-a-vis film.
> > 
> > Am I wrong?  Have you found this to be a problem?
> > 
> > Steve

In short - yes.  It is all the same stuff.  The technical stuff is all the
same (terminology and principles etc)

The advantages of the more expensive 35mm digital cameras vs their cheaper
brethren include higher pixel count, larger sensor size (allowing larger
pixels), greater bit depth and speed (response times).  The 20D is a very
very good camera.  I got the 1Ds MK II because (a) I can afford it (although
my girlfriend thinks I am f******g mad) and (b) I think this it is at about
the level where 35mm will begin to lose economies of scale.  Hence I foresee
never buying another one (yeah yeah).  645 format digital still has a way to
go - both in terms of what it can achieve and what it costs.  There is a lot
of stuff on Norman's site re the 10D which is full of praise.  The 20D is a
major improvement on the 10D!

> From: Stephen Kobrin <kobrins@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:33:45 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Digital camera again
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Steve and others who replied,
> 
> Do your arguments apply to top-end consumer cameras such as the Canon
> 20d?  Or do we have to wait a while until the technology used in the
> pro cameras -- and the digital backs -- is available at
> a "reasonable" price?
> 
> Steve
>

Steve,
I just downloaded QTR, so I can't comment on BW output yet (I don't 
print BW using the epson driver on my 2200)
I can tell you the Canon 1Ds is capable of amazing results.  To 
really make it shine, you need to really dig in and learn it's faults 
like shadow noise, etc.  It also requires careful image capture to 
see it's capabilities.  Using a sturdy tripod, mirror lockup and good 
lens, I have captured stunning detail and tone.  I like to get the 
exposure correct to better than 1/2 stop, so I bracket a lot.
Processing is very important, I use and like Capture-1 with no 
sharpening.  I do all sharpening by hand in PS using tools like 
PhotoKit Sharpener.  I spend a lot of time doing this, so it does not 
work for batch process.  If I want really big prints, I res-up the 
unsharpened image using pyramid interpolation in Qimage to 360dpi at 
print size, before doing sharpening in PS.
The largest print I have is 26x40 inches from a Chromira, and in my 
eye, it's equal or better than what I got from my Bronica 645.  The 
biggest concern I have is only having one body, and the cost makes me 
take that risk.

john

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> In short - yes.  It is all the same stuff.  The technical stuff is 
all the
> same (terminology and principles etc)
> 
> The advantages of the more expensive 35mm digital cameras vs their 
cheaper
> brethren include higher pixel count, larger sensor size (allowing 
larger
> pixels), greater bit depth and speed (response times).  The 20D is 
a very
> very good camera.  I got the 1Ds MK II because (a) I can afford it 
(although
> my girlfriend thinks I am f******g mad) and (b) I think this it is 
at about
> the level where 35mm will begin to lose economies of scale.  Hence 
I foresee
> never buying another one (yeah yeah).  645 format digital still has 
a way to
> go - both in terms of what it can achieve and what it costs.  There 
is a lot
> of stuff on Norman's site re the 10D which is full of praise.  The 
20D is a
> major improvement on the 10D!
> 
> 
> > From: Stephen Kobrin <kobrins@w...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:33:45 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Digital camera again
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks Steve and others who replied,
> > 
> > Do your arguments apply to top-end consumer cameras such as the 
Canon
> > 20d?  Or do we have to wait a while until the technology used in 
the

> > pro cameras -- and the digital backs -- is available at
> > a "reasonable" price?
> > 
> > Steve
> >

Hi John

I have asked this question before but since you are a fan of C1 I will ask
again:  what are the advantages/disadvantages of C1 vs the free Adobe Camera
RAW?  


Steve

On Dec 9, 2004, at 5:53 AM, Alan.Huntley@... wrote:

>
> Hi Steve,
>
> Hope Clayton doesn't mind my jumping in on this discussion, too...
>
> Yes, sensors do display a linear response to incoming light, but that 
> response is more like negative film than slide film. Additionally, 
> because the sensor doesn't have a "toe" or "shoulder" to its 
> "characteristic curve" you actually realize better results on both 
> ends. I'm not sure about the prosumer cameras like the Canon Pro1, but 
> with high-end equipment like the Phase One P25 back, Betterlight scan 
> back, and probably the new Canon 1Ds you're looking at 10 - 12 stops 
> of dynamic range. Throw in the fact that you have very clean images to 
> work with (no grain, etc) and our old measurement factors start to 
> crumble. FYI, from what I've read the new Phase One P25 back (22 
> megapixels) is seriously challenging drum scanned 4x5! I don't know 
> this for fact because I don't own one, but it certainly gives us an 
> idea of where this technology is header. Hopefully, someday this 
> top-o-line equipment will be affordable to the average consumer.

I can say, we've been for years shooting 4x5 in a museum studio and 
drum scanning on a series of high-end drums. I would definitely say 
that in many cases the Betterlight scan backs deliver results far 
superior to the scanning process, but the scan backs aren't always 
convenient. We've recently (this year) began to do most of the work on 
the MF backs, including the H20, H25, and P25. While I wouldn't say the 
quality blows away drum-scanned 4x5 - or even meets it - the 
convenience and costs ultimately led us down that path for almost all 
of our work short of really large paintings. The MF backs deliver more 
than enough quality/resolution for almost all of our work, though I 
still wouldn't really compare it directly to really good scans off a 
really good 4x5. YMMV

-R

On Dec 9, 2004, at 8:46 AM, Steve Kale wrote:

>
> Hi John
>
> I have asked this question before but since you are a fan of C1 I will 
> ask
> again:  what are the advantages/disadvantages of C1 vs the free Adobe 
> Camera
> RAW?

I just posted my first impressions on another list, after downloading 
the C1 3.6 demo last night, and having used Photoshop CS and ACR 
religiously (btw, ACR is definitely not free - you need Photoshop CS to 
use it!). Here it is... note this isn't a comprehensive review, just 
first impressions:

----

Not trying to start a workflow war :) As I've said before, I'm an
ardent Photoshop user, and really like the Camer RAW and XMP workflow
in Photoshop... there are some weaknesses - batching in Photoshop is
always a little dicey - but I'd always been happy enough with the
output quality. I've used C1 several times of the years - in the past
mostly with their PhaseOne MF backs, where it was basically a necessity
and the app was used just with files from those cameras. For whatever
reasons, I never liked the workflow, but lived with it where necessary.

I grabbed the demo of C1 3.6 last night to give it another try, this
time for my DSLRs - 10D and 20D. I didn't get too deep with it, but did
get a chance to try out most, if not all, of the major features over
several hours. I consider myself very technical, and learning new apps
is rarely a big challenge (if I already have background in the basic
concepts, which I do here). So here are my first impressions, good and
bad.

- Quality... all I can say is "wow!". Seriously. I didn't really expect
this, and was pretty skeptical of major output quality differences.
However, even just browsing RAWs "as shot", I noticed immediately the
difference in rendering between Photoshop CS and C1. I'm going to have
to explore this more, and plan to run some real comparative tests
tonight, so I can be sure I wasn't just hopefully imagining things.
What I tended to see with my 20D included: better color balance out of
the box; less banding and noise in tricky areas of sky; much nicer
sharpening (at defaults).
- Workflow... ok, here I'm still pretty unimpressed. While I do like
the background rendering, frankly I couldn't get it to work - it
constantly reported it couldn't find my "Processing" folder, despite
having set and reset it repeatedly to folders I knew existed. I also
had problems with the Sessions concept - initially every time I quit it
reported it couldn't save my Default Session. I finally fixed this by
creating a new session and deleting the Default.
- Editing... I like being able to edit RAW, JPEG, and TIFF all in one
UI. I didn't like feeling like I was missing Undo control - it seemed
most of the corrections I made did not register as Undoable steps, so
my only recourse in general seemed to be to reset whatever property I
just changed... I'd love a History-style undo system as in PS, or even
just proper Undo support for every edit you can make. Am I missing
something? I also felt the UI was cluttered and inelegant, again
compared to PS - the toolbars, the tiny little icons in the edit
panels, etc. And the UI itself took over far too much of the screen,
and took a lot of rearranging to get comfortable with it - and of
course, you can't really rearrange much (I'd again, love to see
something like the Palettes from Adobe or Macromedia). Also, is it just
me missing something, or do the histograms only show a histogram for
the original RAW, and not for instance the effect of the edits you
make? Also, lack of vignette correction and chromatic aberration
correction was a bummer for me.
- Speed... The interactive controls didn't feel fast enough to be
really interactive - the Curves tool for instance was fairly slow,
especially when compared to Photoshop.
- Metadata... I'm a professional digital asset manager; one of my
primary concerns with managing RAW files is also managing the
conversion settings, so that I can store and retrieve an image that is
ready to be processed. I really like Adobe's XMP sidecars for this
reason; they are editable (XML - may not be for everyone, but it makes
writing custom tools to deal RAW files extremely easy) and I have a
pretty advanced workflow based around XMP (and would happily
incorporate another vendors similar solution). So where are C1's
processing settings stored?

Ok, that's about it for the off the top of my head review... just
thought I'd share first impressions. I'm going to put it through more
of its paces over the next 30 days while I have the demo; at this point
I'm not sure whether the processing quality improvements over ACR are
enough to woo me entirely given some of the workflow issues I'm seeing;
I'm thinking if I do buy it for myself, it'll probably be used for that
one-in-a-hundred image (almost for sure not for my panoramas), but
right now I could be totally wrong.

roger howard
email & im @ <rogerhoward@...>
website @ <http://www.rogerroger.org>
photos @ <http://www.rogerroger.org/gallery>

Roger,

Thank you. Your comparison of the Phase One 22 megapixel backs and drum scanned 4x5 is exactly what I've heard; not quite there, yet, but getting damn close! And, as you said, when you figure in other considerations a P25 starts to look REALLY attractive. If it weren't for that $30K price tag!

Alan Huntley

> 
> From: Roger Howard <rogerhoward@...>
> Date: 2004/12/09 Thu PM 01:14:16 EST
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Digital camera again
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 9, 2004, at 5:53 AM, Alan.Huntley@... wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Hope Clayton doesn't mind my jumping in on this discussion, too...
> >
> > Yes, sensors do display a linear response to incoming light, but that 
> > response is more like negative film than slide film. Additionally, 
> > because the sensor doesn't have a "toe" or "shoulder" to its 
> > "characteristic curve" you actually realize better results on both 
> > ends. I'm not sure about the prosumer cameras like the Canon Pro1, but 
> > with high-end equipment like the Phase One P25 back, Betterlight scan 
> > back, and probably the new Canon 1Ds you're looking at 10 - 12 stops 
> > of dynamic range. Throw in the fact that you have very clean images to 
> > work with (no grain, etc) and our old measurement factors start to 
> > crumble. FYI, from what I've read the new Phase One P25 back (22 
> > megapixels) is seriously challenging drum scanned 4x5! I don't know 
> > this for fact because I don't own one, but it certainly gives us an 
> > idea of where this technology is header. Hopefully, someday this 
> > top-o-line equipment will be affordable to the average consumer.
> 
> I can say, we've been for years shooting 4x5 in a museum studio and 
> drum scanning on a series of high-end drums. I would definitely say 
> that in many cases the Betterlight scan backs deliver results far 
> superior to the scanning process, but the scan backs aren't always 
> convenient. We've recently (this year) began to do most of the work on 
> the MF backs, including the H20, H25, and P25. While I wouldn't say the 
> quality blows away drum-scanned 4x5 - or even meets it - the 
> convenience and costs ultimately led us down that path for almost all 
> of our work short of really large paintings. The MF backs deliver more 
> than enough quality/resolution for almost all of our work, though I 
> still wouldn't really compare it directly to really good scans off a 
> really good 4x5. YMMV

Alan - just be glad it doesn't cost you £30,000  !!

> From: <Alan.Huntley@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 14:26:09 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Digital camera again
> 
> 
> Roger,
> 
> Thank you. Your comparison of the Phase One 22 megapixel backs and drum
> scanned 4x5 is exactly what I've heard; not quite there, yet, but getting damn
> close! And, as you said, when you figure in other considerations a P25 starts
> to look REALLY attractive. If it weren't for that $30K price tag!
> 
> Alan Huntley

Steve,
They are both good, and your particular needs may determine which one 
you use most.  It's C1 for me.  I do use ACR for my canon G2, and 
really like the new chromatic abberation reduction feature for the 
wide angle backlit shots.  I think ACR is quite remarkable.  I saw 
the response that ACR is not free; in fact I paid the $99 for it in 
v7.  PS-CS is a must have just for the 16bit layers IMO!  The next 
version of C1 will support the G2, so I'm looking forward to that.

I won't discuss image quality, anyone can do the trial and judge for 
themselves.  I shoot with a 1Ds, so shadow and high-ISO noise is hard 
to keep down.  That may give you an area to examine during your trial.

For me it's the workflow.  It takes some warming up to, but once 
mastered, going back to ACR seems like the stone ages, IMO.  

I must disclose that my photo entry to PhaseOne's demo contest 
resulted in me getting C1 for free, which was much better than the 
$500 cost at the time.  That was some time ago, and I have since 
purchased the 3-year update plan, so I guess I'm very pleased with it.

john

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Hi John
> 
> I have asked this question before but since you are a fan of C1 I 
will ask
> again:  what are the advantages/disadvantages of C1 vs the free 
Adobe Camera

> RAW?  
> 
> 
> Steve

Steve,

WOW...~57,816 USD! Starting to make $30,000 look cheap! <G>

Alan Huntley

> 
> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> Date: 2004/12/09 Thu PM 02:36:34 EST
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Digital camera again
> 
> 
> Alan - just be glad it doesn't cost you \ufffd30,000  !!

I know that what I'm about to disclose is tatamount to "treason" but 
I use an Olympus E-20 5 megapixal for my photo work. I also use it 
for "scanning" artwork for area artists to make limited edition 
prints made with my Epson 9600. I have made some images up to 40x60" 
with my setup and to date no one is having any problem with the 
result. Take some time to peruse my site and see what you think. Be 
advised that I get it for free so it may be somewhat slow to load. 
13x19" are very easily made even to "fanatics", at least in the 
Toledo, Oh market. I can't wait until a 16 meg Leica comes out 
though since the results so far were good, that would have to be 
great....it better be.

Greg

Wealth is a state of mind.
Money is just a tool.
Happiness is pedaling + 25 mph on a smooth road.

http://pages.prodigy.net/glockrey















--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Andre" 
<am1000@v...> wrote:
> 
> In a previous post regarding the use of digital camera, Tony wrote:
> 
> "...I would appreciate any thoughts on the use of a digital camera 
and
> feasability of using one to get respectable prints up to 13x19."
> 
> I was waiting (hope i'm not the only one) for digital camera users 
to
> chime in with their experience on A3+ b&w prints from digital files
> but the discussion went into another diection which is ok 
considering

> the background of the question.
> 
> So if I may, I'd like to ask those with experience relating to the
> above question if they would share it with us.
> TIA

Thanks - I am interested in how your thoughts progress.  I have used C1 in a
tethered environment only and to be honest we were doing very little RAW
image adjustment - really it was being used simply as a camera-computer
interface.

> From: Roger Howard <rogerhoward@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:16:39 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Capture One vs Adobe Camera RAW
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 9, 2004, at 8:46 AM, Steve Kale wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi John
>> 
>> I have asked this question before but since you are a fan of C1 I will
>> ask
>> again:  what are the advantages/disadvantages of C1 vs the free Adobe
>> Camera
>> RAW?
> 
> I just posted my first impressions on another list, after downloading
> the C1 3.6 demo last night, and having used Photoshop CS and ACR
> religiously (btw, ACR is definitely not free - you need Photoshop CS to
> use it!). Here it is... note this isn't a comprehensive review, just
> first impressions:
> 
> ----
> 
> Not trying to start a workflow war :) As I've said before, I'm an
> ardent Photoshop user, and really like the Camer RAW and XMP workflow
> in Photoshop... there are some weaknesses - batching in Photoshop is
> always a little dicey - but I'd always been happy enough with the
> output quality. I've used C1 several times of the years - in the past
> mostly with their PhaseOne MF backs, where it was basically a necessity
> and the app was used just with files from those cameras. For whatever
> reasons, I never liked the workflow, but lived with it where necessary.
> 
> I grabbed the demo of C1 3.6 last night to give it another try, this
> time for my DSLRs - 10D and 20D. I didn't get too deep with it, but did
> get a chance to try out most, if not all, of the major features over
> several hours. I consider myself very technical, and learning new apps
> is rarely a big challenge (if I already have background in the basic
> concepts, which I do here). So here are my first impressions, good and
> bad.
> 
> - Quality... all I can say is "wow!". Seriously. I didn't really expect
> this, and was pretty skeptical of major output quality differences.
> However, even just browsing RAWs "as shot", I noticed immediately the
> difference in rendering between Photoshop CS and C1. I'm going to have
> to explore this more, and plan to run some real comparative tests
> tonight, so I can be sure I wasn't just hopefully imagining things.
> What I tended to see with my 20D included: better color balance out of
> the box; less banding and noise in tricky areas of sky; much nicer
> sharpening (at defaults).
> - Workflow... ok, here I'm still pretty unimpressed. While I do like
> the background rendering, frankly I couldn't get it to work - it
> constantly reported it couldn't find my "Processing" folder, despite
> having set and reset it repeatedly to folders I knew existed. I also
> had problems with the Sessions concept - initially every time I quit it
> reported it couldn't save my Default Session. I finally fixed this by
> creating a new session and deleting the Default.
> - Editing... I like being able to edit RAW, JPEG, and TIFF all in one
> UI. I didn't like feeling like I was missing Undo control - it seemed
> most of the corrections I made did not register as Undoable steps, so
> my only recourse in general seemed to be to reset whatever property I
> just changed... I'd love a History-style undo system as in PS, or even
> just proper Undo support for every edit you can make. Am I missing
> something? I also felt the UI was cluttered and inelegant, again
> compared to PS - the toolbars, the tiny little icons in the edit
> panels, etc. And the UI itself took over far too much of the screen,
> and took a lot of rearranging to get comfortable with it - and of
> course, you can't really rearrange much (I'd again, love to see
> something like the Palettes from Adobe or Macromedia). Also, is it just
> me missing something, or do the histograms only show a histogram for
> the original RAW, and not for instance the effect of the edits you
> make? Also, lack of vignette correction and chromatic aberration
> correction was a bummer for me.
> - Speed... The interactive controls didn't feel fast enough to be
> really interactive - the Curves tool for instance was fairly slow,
> especially when compared to Photoshop.
> - Metadata... I'm a professional digital asset manager; one of my
> primary concerns with managing RAW files is also managing the
> conversion settings, so that I can store and retrieve an image that is
> ready to be processed. I really like Adobe's XMP sidecars for this
> reason; they are editable (XML - may not be for everyone, but it makes
> writing custom tools to deal RAW files extremely easy) and I have a
> pretty advanced workflow based around XMP (and would happily
> incorporate another vendors similar solution). So where are C1's
> processing settings stored?
> 
> Ok, that's about it for the off the top of my head review... just
> thought I'd share first impressions. I'm going to put it through more
> of its paces over the next 30 days while I have the demo; at this point
> I'm not sure whether the processing quality improvements over ACR are
> enough to woo me entirely given some of the workflow issues I'm seeing;
> I'm thinking if I do buy it for myself, it'll probably be used for that
> one-in-a-hundred image (almost for sure not for my panoramas), but
> right now I could be totally wrong.
> 
> roger howard
> email & im @ <rogerhoward@...>
> website @ <http://www.rogerroger.org>
> photos @ <http://www.rogerroger.org/gallery>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Thanks John.  Having just broken the piggy bank for a 1Ds MK II I need to be
sure the extra $500 is REALLY worth it.  I have PS CS and so it's a $500 vs
$0 economic trade-off.....

> From: "John M." <moodymz3@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:44:18 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Capture One vs Adobe Camera RAW
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> They are both good, and your particular needs may determine which one
> you use most.  It's C1 for me.  I do use ACR for my canon G2, and
> really like the new chromatic abberation reduction feature for the
> wide angle backlit shots.  I think ACR is quite remarkable.  I saw
> the response that ACR is not free; in fact I paid the $99 for it in
> v7.  PS-CS is a must have just for the 16bit layers IMO!  The next
> version of C1 will support the G2, so I'm looking forward to that.
> 
> I won't discuss image quality, anyone can do the trial and judge for
> themselves.  I shoot with a 1Ds, so shadow and high-ISO noise is hard
> to keep down.  That may give you an area to examine during your trial.
> 
> For me it's the workflow.  It takes some warming up to, but once
> mastered, going back to ACR seems like the stone ages, IMO.
> 
> I must disclose that my photo entry to PhaseOne's demo contest
> resulted in me getting C1 for free, which was much better than the
> $500 cost at the time.  That was some time ago, and I have since
> purchased the 3-year update plan, so I guess I'm very pleased with it.
> 
> john
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> Hi John
>> 
>> I have asked this question before but since you are a fan of C1 I
> will ask
>> again:  what are the advantages/disadvantages of C1 vs the free
> Adobe Camera
>> RAW?  
>> 
>> 
>> Steve
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> 
Thanks for the two links Steve. I really need to learn more in the way
digital images are linearized and I'll be visiting the Koren website.
Andre


> mentioned before, on Norman Koren's site, specifically this page:
> 
> http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html
> 
> It goes through all the issues that have recently been dicussed in this
> thread:  gamma, film vs digital, tonal range, how the eye sees, and the
> practical application of all of this to using an S curve in RAW
pixel value
> conversion to RGB.
> 
> I would also read the two bits headed up "Gamma and Black Level" and
"Why

> gamma?"  on this page:
> 
> http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html
>

> From: Andre [mailto:am1000@...]
>
> In a previous post regarding the use of digital camera, Tony wrote:
>
> "...I would appreciate any thoughts on the use of a digital camera and
> feasability of using one to get respectable prints up to 13x19."
>
> I was waiting (hope i'm not the only one) for digital camera users to
> chime in with their experience on A3+ b&w prints from digital files
> but the discussion went into another diection which is ok considering
> the background of the question.
>
> So if I may, I'd like to ask those with experience relating to the
> above question if they would share it with us.

I've made a couple Super-B B&Ws from a Canon 10D on an Epson 2200, using
color inks (both with the Epson driver and ImagePrint). I feel that the
resolution of a six megapixel camera like the Canon 10D (about 170ppi) isn't
quite up to the sharpness limits of the 2200 with color inks, but it's
close. The eight megapixel 20D would be a bit closer (195ppi). Although the
printer is theoretically capable of 720ppi, the dithering makes its
effective resolution quite a bit lower, for anything other than the most
contrasty edges.

On the other hand, there are quadtones or hextones. I also have an old
2000P, and I'm waiting for MIS to get off their duffs and release the 2000P
quadtone carts. I expect with quadtones or hextones, the printer's available
sharpness goes way up, since it doesn't have to rely as much upon dithering.
In this case, it would probably take a 16 megapixel 1Ds Mark II to push the
sharpness limits of the printer.

I guess I'd have to say it boils down to this. I've gotten lots of nice
prints from my 10D (mostly color) at that size. But if you print 12x18", and
intend to stick your nose up to the print, you'll probably find the prints
sharp, but not quite razor sharp.

--

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

> From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
>
> I have asked this question before but since you are a fan of C1 I will ask
> again:  what are the advantages/disadvantages of C1 vs the free
> Adobe Camera RAW?

1) C1 has a better conversion engine than probably anyone else. However,
most images don't push the limits of any converter, so ACR is fine on them.
It's when you come up against very wide dynamic range images that C1 shines,
partly because it does a better job of suppressing banding in shadow areas,
partly because it creates fewer strange artifacts from random sensor noise.
It also uses an actual ICC profile to describe each camera, for more
accurate color.

2) Unfortunately, C1 doesn't have vignetting and CA correction. The former
can be done afterwards in Photoshop, but CA correction really is best done
in the raw converter. For images that have visible CA, ACR has a significant
advantage.

3) C1 is optimized for a batch workflow. It works well if you need to
convert all of your images from a shoot into some standard file format like
TIFF, with little editing beyond white balance tweaking. For certain kinds
of jobs, that's probably very useful. If you need to do further editing,
then you're stuck with running the images through two separate pieces of
software. If instead you would prefer to treat raw files like any other file
format, and open them individually and randomly, then ACR is more
convenient, because you open each file directly into your editor. Also, it
takes C1 a really long time to open a folder if it has a lot of images in
it, making it tedious to use for one-at-a-time editing.

--

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

If you are doing landscapes and need more resolution for large prints 
then try stitching multiple frames.  You can achieve near large format 
(4x5) quality with this technique using a 6 MP digital camera with good 
glass (a 135mm f/2 L is a good lens choice for this type of work on a 
10D).  See Max Lyons work for some excellent examples.
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/index.html

On Dec 9, 2004, at 7:53 PM, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

>
>> From: Andre [mailto:am1000@...]
>>
>> In a previous post regarding the use of digital camera, Tony wrote:
>>
>> "...I would appreciate any thoughts on the use of a digital camera and
>> feasability of using one to get respectable prints up to 13x19."
>>
>> I was waiting (hope i'm not the only one) for digital camera users to
>> chime in with their experience on A3+ b&w prints from digital files
>> but the discussion went into another diection which is ok considering
>> the background of the question.
>>
>> So if I may, I'd like to ask those with experience relating to the
>> above question if they would share it with us.
>
> I've made a couple Super-B B&Ws from a Canon 10D on an Epson 2200, 
> using
> color inks (both with the Epson driver and ImagePrint). I feel that the
> resolution of a six megapixel camera like the Canon 10D (about 170ppi) 
> isn't
> quite up to the sharpness limits of the 2200 with color inks, but it's
> close. The eight megapixel 20D would be a bit closer (195ppi). 
> Although the
> printer is theoretically capable of 720ppi, the dithering makes its
> effective resolution quite a bit lower, for anything other than the 
> most
> contrasty edges.
>
> On the other hand, there are quadtones or hextones. I also have an old
> 2000P, and I'm waiting for MIS to get off their duffs and release the 
> 2000P
> quadtone carts. I expect with quadtones or hextones, the printer's 
> available
> sharpness goes way up, since it doesn't have to rely as much upon 
> dithering.
> In this case, it would probably take a 16 megapixel 1Ds Mark II to 
> push the
> sharpness limits of the printer.
>
> I guess I'd have to say it boils down to this. I've gotten lots of nice
> prints from my 10D (mostly color) at that size. But if you print 
> 12x18", and
> intend to stick your nose up to the print, you'll probably find the 
> prints
> sharp, but not quite razor sharp.
>
> --
>
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Hello Stephen,

>Resolution aside, I worry about two problems with digital capture
>for B&W. 


>Have you found this to be a problem?

I'm sure there is something going on on the theoretical level, but in
real world practical experience, no I have not experienced any big
problems.  I have been very pleased with the results and find it easy
to work with.  The entire experience, from capture to print, is so
different than film/enlarger that it's like starting all over again
from scratch and you just learn and adapt to it.   

I found the switch to digital capture not to be a traumatic experience
at all, but instead a very exciting and energizing one.  Every outing
so far (a few short day trips) has been an eager event, with more
photographic excitement and interest than I have experienced in a long
time.  Next month I am going on my first major serious completely
digital photo expedition, a week in California, beginning with three
days in Death Valley, then San Bernardino Mtns, then San Jacinto Mtns.
 This will be the acid test, as I will have images to compare with 6x7
and 645 stuff from previous trips out there.  Anticipation is growing
<g>.  

It's great to be working on the cutting edge of a major technological
and cultural shift.  I am not looking back, only ahead.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Hello Andre,

>> 3) Bottom line, though, is the bigger the sensor the better the
>>results.  My Pro-1 11x14s look sort of like what I'd expect from 
>>a 645

>This is getting even better. However, I usually print to 12.75" 
>on the short side. Would you say that the image will hold at that 
>size... 

Yes, and even better than that.  But before I describe it, we must
acknowledge that everyone has their own definition of what "sharp" is
and what "acceptable" is.  So take all this with a grain of salt and
try to interpolate into your own framework.   I decided to test the
limits and I made a portrait of a friend and printed sections of it at
continually higher magnifications just to see where the limits were.

I got all the way up to 22x30 and still had an acceptable print.  What
I mean by that is that from 2 or 3 ft away (or more) it looks "sharp"
(meaning it doesn't look soft or fuzzy or out of focus), I can see
individual skin pores and hairs, and, importantly, there is no grain.
 Looking closely of course I can see some softness, and with a loupe
can see some tiny stair-stepping on diagonals.  But I know I could
hang a
22x30 portrait on a wall and people would marvel at it.  Is it as good
as 4x5 film?  Of course not, so whether this is "acceptable" depends
on the viewer's standards.


>...or is there a point where it will deteriorate really fast. 

Well, it actually seems to deteriorate very slowly.  The point of
unacceptability sneaks up on you, and it's hard to decide exactly
where it is.  Since there is no grain that gets bigger, it's mainly a
matter of pixellation.  Whether pixellation forces a limit before
image quality goes is really a matter of lens quality.  My 4mp Canon
G3 has a fine lens, but at 4mp, pixellation halted enlargement before
lens quality gave out.  IOW, the lens was ahead of the resolution. 
With the Pro-1, 8mp allows huge enlargement before pixellation becomes
an issue.  So the question becomes whether the lens is up to it.  For
the Pro-1 the answer is a resounding "Yes".  I find it to be a superb
match, so much so that it's hard to decide where the limit is.

So I'm sure with the bigger sensors the upper limits are even greater.
But you must be willing to buy the good glass.  Without film grain
getting in the way, the sensors will take the lens to its limit.

I said this before, and Alan also mentioned it in his post: the old
constraints no longer apply.  It's a whole new ball game and we have
to learn the new rules.  



>And since you do not mention it, I gather that you do not have any 
>problems with print tonality from digital images ?

No, not at all.  I shoot raw and during the conversion to BW can
choose from a wide range of effects.  Prints from my 2200 show the
subtlest gradation.  If I can see it on the screen I can see it in the
print.  In fact, just the opposite - I often see things in the print I
can't see on screen.  These printers are incredibly sensitive.


>I've read numerous times that the images from a digital camera is
>somewhat linear, whatever that means. Would you say that applying 
>an S-curve in Photoshop helps restore some analog (film) look about 
>the image ?

The clue to the answer is in your statement "whatever that means".  I
would say "yes", except it would imply that I agree with the linear
idea.  I don't perceive any effect that is so different that I would
give it a name such as "linear".  That term doesn't have any real
practical meaning for me.  IMO we get too caught up in all the
theories.  I'm not saying they aren't true, but my own practical
experience is that it simply doesn't matter and it's a waste of time
to dwell on it.  I just take the picture and work with it.   

I've learned how to convert to BW and get pleasing tones, and have
learned how to do things in PS to get what I want in the final image.
 If I think it needs more or less contrast somewhere then I just do
it.  If those theories are at work...well, so what?  Just do whatever
you think needs to be done.  You will intuitively learn by doing.  I
found that my photographic and printing instincts from years in the
darkroom adapted easily (and quickly) to digital.  As I learned more
about PS I found that I had clearer ideas about what I wanted to
achieve and how to go about it.


>Also, do you have a favorite method of converting to b&w or do you
>choose from many depending on the image.

For a while I tried lots of different approaches, but narrowed it down
to one method.  However I make lots of different choices within that
method, depending on the image.  So it's not a rigid formula that I
apply to every image.  It's described on my web site in article #7
(link below).

Regards,
Clayton


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

Paul,

Sorry for the dumm question, what are C1 & CA  & ACR ? Soft for digital camera to transfer raw files to PS ?
Just try to understand what you guys are talking about.

Thanks

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul D. DeRocco 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:55 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Capture One vs Adobe Camera RAW



  >>>>>>>>>>>  2) Unfortunately, C1 doesn't have vignetting and CA correction. The former
  can be done afterwards in Photoshop, but CA correction really is best done
  in the raw converter. For images that have visible CA, ACR has a significant
  advantage.  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



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

sinwen wrote:

>Paul,
>
>Sorry for the dumm question, what are C1 & CA  & ACR ? Soft for digital camera to transfer raw files to PS ?
>Just try to understand what you guys are talking about.
>
>Thanks
>
>  
>
Paul is probably asleep right now so I'll answer :-)

Yes, C1 (Capture One from Phase One) and ACR (the Photoshop RAW 
converter) are RAW converters
CA stands for Chromatic Abberation

--
Hans VR
www.vanrafelghem.com

Thanks Hans.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hans VR 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 11:30 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Capture One vs Adobe Camera RAW


  sinwen wrote:

  >Paul,
  >
  >Sorry for the dumm question, what are C1 & CA  & ACR ? Soft for digital camera to transfer raw files to PS ?
  >Just try to understand what you guys are talking about.
  >
  >Thanks
  >
  >  
  >
  Paul is probably asleep right now so I'll answer :-)

  Yes, C1 (Capture One from Phase One) and ACR (the Photoshop RAW 
  converter) are RAW converters
  CA stands for Chromatic Abberation

  --
  Hans VR
  www.vanrafelghem.com



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

Thanks Paul.  Sounds like the $500 is hard to justify when I have PS CS
already.

> From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:55:54 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Capture One vs Adobe Camera RAW
> 
> 
>> From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
>> 
>> I have asked this question before but since you are a fan of C1 I will ask
>> again:  what are the advantages/disadvantages of C1 vs the free
>> Adobe Camera RAW?
> 
> 1) C1 has a better conversion engine than probably anyone else. However,
> most images don't push the limits of any converter, so ACR is fine on them.
> It's when you come up against very wide dynamic range images that C1 shines,
> partly because it does a better job of suppressing banding in shadow areas,
> partly because it creates fewer strange artifacts from random sensor noise.
> It also uses an actual ICC profile to describe each camera, for more
> accurate color.
> 
> 2) Unfortunately, C1 doesn't have vignetting and CA correction. The former
> can be done afterwards in Photoshop, but CA correction really is best done
> in the raw converter. For images that have visible CA, ACR has a significant
> advantage.
> 
> 3) C1 is optimized for a batch workflow. It works well if you need to
> convert all of your images from a shoot into some standard file format like
> TIFF, with little editing beyond white balance tweaking. For certain kinds
> of jobs, that's probably very useful. If you need to do further editing,
> then you're stuck with running the images through two separate pieces of
> software. If instead you would prefer to treat raw files like any other file
> format, and open them individually and randomly, then ACR is more
> convenient, because you open each file directly into your editor. Also, it
> takes C1 a really long time to open a folder if it has a lot of images in
> it, making it tedious to use for one-at-a-time editing.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Steve Kale wrote:

>Thanks Paul.  Sounds like the $500 is hard to justify when I have PS CS
>already.
>
>  
>
Having both C1PRO and PS CS I think it is, but maybe you should work 
with the trial version for a while.
Anyway, for color, I get the maximum out of C1 using the Etcetera 
profiles for both my EOS D60 & 1D MkII.

--
Hans VR
www.vanrafelghem.com

Etcetera profiles?

> From: Hans VR <hvr@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:42:28 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Capture One vs Adobe Camera RAW
> 
> 
> Steve Kale wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Paul.  Sounds like the $500 is hard to justify when I have PS CS
>> already.
>> 
>>  
>> 
> Having both C1PRO and PS CS I think it is, but maybe you should work
> with the trial version for a while.
> Anyway, for color, I get the maximum out of C1 using the Etcetera
> profiles for both my EOS D60 & 1D MkII.
> 
> --
> Hans VR
> www.vanrafelghem.com

Steve Kale wrote:

>Etcetera profiles?
>
>  
>
http://etcetera.cc/pub/

>>>      
>>>
>>Having both C1PRO and PS CS I think it is, but maybe you should work
>>with the trial version for a while.
>>Anyway, for color, I get the maximum out of C1 using the Etcetera
>>profiles for both my EOS D60 & 1D MkII.
>>
>>--
>>Hans VR
>>www.vanrafelghem.com
>>    
>>

OK thanks

> From: Hans VR <hvr@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:04:41 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Capture One vs Adobe Camera RAW
> 
> 
> Steve Kale wrote:
> 
>> Etcetera profiles?
>> 
>>  
>> 
> http://etcetera.cc/pub/
> 
>>>>      
>>>> 
>>> Having both C1PRO and PS CS I think it is, but maybe you should work
>>> with the trial version for a while.
>>> Anyway, for color, I get the maximum out of C1 using the Etcetera
>>> profiles for both my EOS D60 & 1D MkII.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Hans VR
>>> www.vanrafelghem.com
>>>    
>>>

One other question you can probably help me with.  I find the Phase One site
very ambiguous on many things.  It is a lot better than it once was but
there are still some issues.  When looking at the Capture One Pro features
page it says that all the digital backs and the 1Ds MK II are only supported
tethered in the Windows version only.  Yet I have used the digital backs
tethered to a Mac.  What is the real answer?

> From: Hans VR <hvr@avr-toon.com>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:04:41 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Capture One vs Adobe Camera RAW
> 
> 
> Steve Kale wrote:
> 
>> Etcetera profiles?
>> 
>>  
>> 
> http://etcetera.cc/pub/
> 
>>>>      
>>>> 
>>> Having both C1PRO and PS CS I think it is, but maybe you should work
>>> with the trial version for a while.
>>> Anyway, for color, I get the maximum out of C1 using the Etcetera
>>> profiles for both my EOS D60 & 1D MkII.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Hans VR
>>> www.vanrafelghem.com
>>>    
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² 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 ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² 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  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Sorry I should have said "all of the digital backs and the 1Ds and 1D MK II"

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:22:18 +0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Capture One vs Adobe Camera RAW
> 
> 
> One other question you can probably help me with.  I find the Phase One site
> very ambiguous on many things.  It is a lot better than it once was but
> there are still some issues.  When looking at the Capture One Pro features
> page it says that all the digital backs and the 1Ds MK II are only supported
> tethered in the Windows version only.  Yet I have used the digital backs
> tethered to a Mac.  What is the real answer?
> 
> 
>> From: Hans VR <hvr@...>
>> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:04:41 +0100
>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Capture One vs Adobe Camera RAW
>> 
>> 
>> Steve Kale wrote:
>> 
>>> Etcetera profiles?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>> http://etcetera.cc/pub/
>> 
>>>>>      
>>>>> 
>>>> Having both C1PRO and PS CS I think it is, but maybe you should work
>>>> with the trial version for a while.
>>>> Anyway, for color, I get the maximum out of C1 using the Etcetera
>>>> profiles for both my EOS D60 & 1D MkII.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Hans VR
>>>> www.vanrafelghem.com
>>>>    
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² 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 ³OWNER² AND
>> ³MODERATORS² 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  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS²
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Steve Kale wrote:

>One other question you can probably help me with.  I find the Phase One site
>very ambiguous on many things.  It is a lot better than it once was but
>there are still some issues.  When looking at the Capture One Pro features
>page it says that all the digital backs and the 1Ds MK II are only supported
>tethered in the Windows version only.  Yet I have used the digital backs
>tethered to a Mac.  What is the real answer?
>
>  
>
Can't help with that but I do know the 1D MkII is not yet supported for 
tethered shooting on the Win version.

--
Hans VR
www.vanrafelghem.com

On Dec 10, 2004, at 4:19 AM, Steve Kale wrote:

>
> Thanks Paul.  Sounds like the $500 is hard to justify when I have PS CS
> already.

I'll update my review next week with more recent impressions.. I just 
wanted to say, after spending another day with it processing images for 
prints for the holidays, I really see the benefit of this app over PS 
CS for certain workflows. I cranked through correcting and processing 
more photos, more easily, than I ever could in the same time in 
Photoshop - while it's missing the vignette and CA correction I need 
for my panoramas, for individual rectilinear photos it's a real 
workhorse. I can see the appeal for a lot of people. I will continue to 
use Photoshop, because it's my frontend for my cataloging system and 
because most of my actual work (panoramas and others) will end up in it 
anyway, but for cruising through a set of newly shot images to create 
print-ready TIFFs, all I can say is wow!

Give it a try... it's not my favorite UI ever, but a little time and it 
becomes a very efficient tool for correcting and processing a lot of 
files individually.

Having just received my 1Ds MK II I was eager to also play with Capture One.
But I can't seem to get Capture One to recognise the camera media
(apparently it is automatically meant to recognise when a flash card is
connected to the computer and load an import window).  My problem is that
when I plug the camera in via USB iPhoto (I use a Mac) loads and nothing
happens with Capture One.  My firewire board is down but I daisy chained my
powerbook over ethernet and connected the two computers hoping that if I
connected the camera by firewire to the PB that would work but it doesn't.
What am I missing?  How can I over-rode iPhoto?

(Sorry if this is too off-topic)

> From: Hans VR <hvr@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:04:41 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Capture One vs Adobe Camera RAW
> 
> 
> Steve Kale wrote:
> 
>> Etcetera profiles?
>> 
>>  
>> 
> http://etcetera.cc/pub/
> 
>>>>      
>>>> 
>>> Having both C1PRO and PS CS I think it is, but maybe you should work
>>> with the trial version for a while.
>>> Anyway, for color, I get the maximum out of C1 using the Etcetera
>>> profiles for both my EOS D60 & 1D MkII.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Hans VR
>>> www.vanrafelghem.com
>>>    
>>>