Digital BW, The Print

Quentin, I didn\ufffdt understand the part about neg/scan/ digital capture.

However the Imacon is too expensive for me at this time. It\ufffds at least twice
as much as a Nikon/ Polaroid 120 or Minolta Pro. I am a non professional, no
income through photo, so I cannot justify buying such an expensive unit.
Although its a pity..

I still have some rolls of APX25 here, but its 35mm....

bernhard

----- Original Message -----
From: <qdb@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 12:42 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Shooting and Scanning - traditional vs. digital
darkroom


You have two basic digital options: neg and scan, or pure digital
capture.  I'm not sure whether you are looking at pure digital
options, but I assume not.

If you can afford it, the Imacon Photo is good with negs.  It is
fabulous with fine grain film like Tech Pan and the late, lamented
APX25 (sob!).  With a 67 neg, grain will not be an issue, save for
fast film.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Shooting and Scanning - traditional vs. digital
darkroom


> Bernhard - What grain problems are you having? All my stuff is BW and
grain
> isn't an issue. Are you using that newfangled ICE stuff? Turn it off! Get
a
> 16bit raw scan in something like Vuescan or Silverfast.
>

No, of course no ICE, it doesn\ufffdt work on b&w. But ot seems that gain just
does shop up stronger on b&w films than on slides.
Which films do you use mostly, do you process them yourself? And which
scanner?
What do you do with those very small durst specks?

Bernhard

Bernhard,

My point about digital capture was - cut out the scanner and buy a 
digital camera.  I use a fuji S1 and it produces outstanding 
portraits at up to A3+ size. 

Whether this is a viable option depends upon how big you want to 
print.  A digital SLR might not be the best choice for those finely 
detailed architectural shots, for example.  You'll save on film 
costs, of course.

Assuming you are going down the scanner route, then what about the 
Nikon LS8000?  It's light sorce is a bit ruthless with negs (I once 
owned an LS2000). 

By the way, the Imacon Photo has come down in price since I bought 
mine 18 months ago.
--
Quentin   

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Bernie Ess" 
<albatros.bee@w...> wrote:
> Quentin, I didn´t understand the part about neg/scan/ digital 
capture.
> 
> However the Imacon is too expensive for me at this time. It´s at 
least twice
> as much as a Nikon/ Polaroid 120 or Minolta Pro. I am a non 
professional, no
> income through photo, so I cannot justify buying such an expensive 
unit.
> Although its a pity..
> 
> I still have some rolls of APX25 here, but its 35mm....
> 
> bernhard
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <qdb@b...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 12:42 PM
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Shooting and Scanning - traditional vs. 
digital

> darkroom
> 
> 
> You have two basic digital options: neg and scan, or pure digital
> capture.  I'm not sure whether you are looking at pure digital
> options, but I assume not.
> 
> If you can afford it, the Imacon Photo is good with negs.  It is
> fabulous with fine grain film like Tech Pan and the late, lamented
> APX25 (sob!).  With a 67 neg, grain will not be an issue, save for
> fast film.

Quentin,

I have printed A3+ of a digital 3,3 MP Canon G1, and they may be ok for
simple photographs like a portrait, but as you say, for fine detailed
architecture, or, even more, for landscape/ nature shots they have a lack of
detail.

The Imacon Photo is about 5000$ now, in Germany almost noone seems to have
it, and way more expensive than the US price (min. 6500$) - that is still
much too much. If I buy one it will be one of the 3: Nikon Polaroid Minolta,
maybe the last one...

Bernhard

----- Original Message -----
From: <qdb@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 1:42 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Shooting and Scanning - traditional vs. digital
darkroom


Bernhard,

My point about digital capture was - cut out the scanner and buy a
digital camera.  I use a fuji S1 and it produces outstanding
portraits at up to A3+ size.

(...)
By the way, the Imacon Photo has come down in price since I bought
mine 18 months ago.
--
Quentin

For 35mm I use TriX souped in Xtol, scanned on a ss4000 using Vuescan. For
mf (6x6 and 6x9) I use Delta 400 souped in DiXactol (wonderful new find) and
scanned on an Epson 1680Pro using Silverfast or Vuescan. I always scan 16bit
Raw Image (16bit HDR in Silverfast) as I don't want any of those nasty
filters getting between me and the neg. The dustspecs I use the stamping
tool in PS.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernie Ess" <albatros.bee@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Shooting and Scanning - traditional vs.
digital darkroom


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Shooting and Scanning - traditional vs. digital
> darkroom
>
>
> > Bernhard - What grain problems are you having? All my stuff is BW and
> grain
> > isn't an issue. Are you using that newfangled ICE stuff? Turn it off!
Get
> a
> > 16bit raw scan in something like Vuescan or Silverfast.
> >
>
> No, of course no ICE, it doesn\ufffdt work on b&w. But ot seems that gain just
> does shop up stronger on b&w films than on slides.
> Which films do you use mostly, do you process them yourself? And which
> scanner?
> What do you do with those very small durst specks?
>
> Bernhard
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: "Bernie Ess" <albatros.bee@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 12:25 PM
>  I am a non professional, no
> income through photo, so I cannot justify buying such an expensive unit.

Of course you can justify it, all you need to do is to want it badly enough
and after an appropriate time working out just why you need it (and that's
not at all difficult believe you me) you arrive at the real
problem/situation i.e. can you afford it.

Now that is something entirely different (:-)))))))

>
> For 35mm I use TriX souped in Xtol, scanned on a ss4000 using Vuescan. For
> mf (6x6 and 6x9) I use Delta 400 souped in DiXactol (wonderful
> new find) and
> scanned on an Epson 1680Pro using Silverfast or Vuescan. I always
> scan 16bit
> Raw Image (16bit HDR in Silverfast) as I don't want any of those nasty
> filters getting between me and the neg. The dustspecs I use the stamping
> tool in PS.

Julian,

The 1680 has a large transparency setup doesn't it? How do you think it
would do for 8x10 negs (colour, b&w, trannys...)

Thanks

Tim

I agree...look how much some people will spend on a new car..drive it 
out the showroom and POOF!.. you've lost the price of an Imacon in 
depreciation :-)

Its a question of priorities (food, then some clothing, scanner..)
--
Q.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Dickbo" <Dickbo@b...> 
wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bernie Ess" <albatros.bee@w...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 12:25 PM
> >  I am a non professional, no
> > income through photo, so I cannot justify buying such an 
expensive unit.
> 
> Of course you can justify it, all you need to do is to want it 
badly enough
> and after an appropriate time working out just why you need it (and 
that's

> not at all difficult believe you me) you arrive at the real
> problem/situation i.e. can you afford it.
> 
> Now that is something entirely different (:-)))))))

Tim, the pro comes with an extra lid. The largest holders it comes with is
5x4, but it would takes 8x10 mounted staright on the glass.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Atherton" <timphoto@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 7:52 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Shooting and Scanning - traditional vs.
digital darkroom


> >
> > For 35mm I use TriX souped in Xtol, scanned on a ss4000 using Vuescan.
For
> > mf (6x6 and 6x9) I use Delta 400 souped in DiXactol (wonderful
> > new find) and
> > scanned on an Epson 1680Pro using Silverfast or Vuescan. I always
> > scan 16bit
> > Raw Image (16bit HDR in Silverfast) as I don't want any of those nasty
> > filters getting between me and the neg. The dustspecs I use the stamping
> > tool in PS.
>
> Julian,
>
> The 1680 has a large transparency setup doesn't it? How do you think it
> would do for 8x10 negs (colour, b&w, trannys...)
>
> Thanks
>
> Tim
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Julian, when scanning 6x6 with the 1680, how big are you getting really
sharp, good
prints without artefacts?

Greetings Bernhard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Shooting and Scanning - traditional vs.
digital darkroom


> For 35mm I use TriX souped in Xtol, scanned on a ss4000 using Vuescan. For
> mf (6x6 and 6x9) I use Delta 400 souped in DiXactol (wonderful new find)
and
> scanned on an Epson 1680Pro using Silverfast or Vuescan. I always scan
16bit

> Raw Image (16bit HDR in Silverfast) as I don't want any of those nasty
> filters getting between me and the neg. The dustspecs I use the stamping
> tool in PS.

My portfolio is 9x9 on A3 - stuff I've sold is 10x10 on A3 @340dpi. I've
been up to 12x12 on Super A3 and it is fine. I wouldn't go larger. BTW I use
Genuine Fractals but only res up for the 12x12. Nij has some of my prints
now, so he could offer an independent view onthe resolution.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernhard Ess" <albatros.bee@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Shooting and Scanning - traditional vs.
digital darkroom


> Julian, when scanning 6x6 with the 1680, how big are you getting really
> sharp, good
> prints without artefacts?
>
> Greetings Bernhard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 2:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Shooting and Scanning - traditional vs.
> digital darkroom
>
>
> > For 35mm I use TriX souped in Xtol, scanned on a ss4000 using Vuescan.
For
> > mf (6x6 and 6x9) I use Delta 400 souped in DiXactol (wonderful new find)
> and
> > scanned on an Epson 1680Pro using Silverfast or Vuescan. I always scan
> 16bit
> > Raw Image (16bit HDR in Silverfast) as I don't want any of those nasty
> > filters getting between me and the neg. The dustspecs I use the stamping
> > tool in PS.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>