Digital BW, The Print

I have recently started shooting with a Canon  20D from shooting MF
then scanning on the 
MInolta Mulit Pro.  I shoot in RAW format and convert with Adobe
Camera Raw in CS2.  The 
MF shots were on transparency then converted to BW in PS using
usually the
channel mixer.  I 
notice that the scanned film when converted to black and white
results in a better and 
cleaner looking BW image and the prints are also noticeably better in
terms of contrast and 
depth. Print sizes vary from 8x10 to 16x20 on my Epson 7600 using UC
inks(Photo Black) 
usually on EnH matte or Hahnemule PH rag.  Just may be me but I was
wondering what 
others may think and
would greatly 
appreciate any comments.  I have tried some of the plugins out there
for BW conversion 
but I think the result is similar to that obtained in PS.

"Osroubek" wrote:

> 
> I have recently started shooting with a Canon  20D from shooting MF
> then scanning on the Minolta Multi Pro.  I shoot in RAW format and 
>convert with Adobe Camera Raw in CS2.  The
> MF shots were on transparency then converted to BW in PS using
> usually the channel mixer.  
>I notice that the scanned film when converted to black and white
> results in a better and cleaner looking BW image ...

I have also started using the 8 MP Canon chip in the XT and enlarge to 16 x
20.  My other cameras are MF.  What I've found is that the 8 mp chip can
make a 16 x 20 that is very close to the film shot, but it probably takes
more work.  Here are some of my observations. (The shot I just worked up is
on my web page, below.)
 
The limited latitude of the sensor requires bracketing in many shots, also
not the usual sun-lit scenic.

The noise/grain level of the digital image is less than Tmax 100 in the
bright areas, but can be a problem in dark smooth areas.

The depth of field advantages of the small sensor are significant.

CS2 smart sharpening is very useful, but still not enough (or I'm not good
enough with it) to avoid too-bright small highlights in some areas by the
time the image is sharp enough.  To correct for this, I have to us a curve
to pull these down in the affected area.

The very high contrast edges may require that the green channel alone be
used.  The green channel, maybe because it has 2 sensors, seems to give the
best image in some areas.

I have not found third party raw converters to be better than the CS2
download.

Overall, based on very limited experience, I'd say 8 mp can make a good 16 x
20 -- not perfect, but then neither is MF 100 ISO film.  Neither can match
MF Tech Pan, but that film is history (aside from the pile in my freezer).
Finding workflows to get around the limited latitude is probably the area
where more work is most needed.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

The long shoulder many are familiar with on film is so different from
the sharp cut-off on digital that it is hard to transition from one to
the other. 
I found that a raw coverter* that allows easy manipulation of the
"characteristic curve", followed by hours of trial and error learning,
goes some way to restore the look in the highlights.  I frequently
reduce the highlight contrast to around 1/3, or less, of the midtone
contrast. Sometimes I like the highlights better than all but a few of
my best negatives (mostly Tech. Pan in various soups, long ago).
It is not the same as film processed for long scale though, and
getting the shadows right ranges from hard to close to impossible
depending on the contrast range of the scene. 


Ken
   


*the only one I've used in which this is convenient is C1 LE, but I do
not use PS/ACR so can't compare.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "osroubek"
<o.sroubek@c...> wrote:
> I have recently started shooting with a Canon  20D from shooting MF
> then scanning on the 
> MInolta Mulit Pro.  I shoot in RAW format and convert with Adobe
> Camera Raw in CS2.  The 
> MF shots were on transparency then converted to BW in PS using
> usually the
> channel mixer.  I 
> notice that the scanned film when converted to black and white
> results in a better and 
> cleaner looking BW image and the prints are also noticeably better
in

> terms of contrast and 
> depth. Print sizes vary from 8x10 to 16x20 on my Epson 7600 using UC
> inks(Photo Black) 
> usually on EnH matte or Hahnemule PH rag.  Just may be me but I was
> wondering what 
> others may think and
> would greatly 
> appreciate any comments.  I have tried some of the plugins out there
> for BW conversion 
> but I think the result is similar to that obtained in PS.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> 
wrote:
> "Osroubek" wrote:
> 

> 
> The noise/grain level of the digital image is less than Tmax 100 in the
> bright areas, but can be a problem in dark smooth areas.

Paul, are you using any kind of noise reduction for this?

Ed

<The limited latitude of the sensor requires bracketing in many shots, 
also
not the usual sun-lit scenic.>

Have you tried HDR in CS2?

My first attempt last night looked terrible. I didn't even try to print 
the image.

I guess I'll have to play around somemore with HDR.

Scott

Ed,


> > The noise/grain level of the digital image is less than Tmax 100 in the
> > bright areas, but can be a problem in dark smooth areas.
> 
> Paul, are you using any kind of noise reduction for this?
> 

No, not yet.  So far it has not impacted any of the images I'm working up.
I've just noticed it in some that I've taken (that didn't make the grade for
enlarging due to other problems).  I really have not explored the noise
reductions tools for digital yet, although I have used them on film images
with some success.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> 
> <The limited latitude of the sensor requires bracketing in many shots,
> also
> not the usual sun-lit scenic.>
> 
> Have you tried HDR in CS2?
> 
> My first attempt last night looked terrible. I didn't even try to print
> the image.
> 

My attempts to use HDR have not been good either.  The noise has increased,
and the moving parts (leaves, branches, etc.) are a mess, even with the
software's alleged "detail matching" ability.

When the camera is on a tripod, manually merging digital images is much
easier than with film originals.  If the camera and focus were not moved,
the clone can be aligned at, for example, the upper left corner (1,1) and it
appears it'll be perfectly aligned for the entire frame.  

If the focus has been changed, for example for zone focusing, once the
magnification differences are adjusted for (I measure points in the frames
with the selection tool rectangle size), and the clone tool has been aligned
on a point in the scene, the one alignment also has stayed acceptable for
the entire relevant area, at least with my Canon 24mm (distortions of some
lenses like zooms can make this more difficult). 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

FWIW I have been using Noise Ninja (at the advice of
many other shooters) and find it extremely good. Much
better than the noise reduction in PS. Very versatile
and controllable.

woody

--- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Ed,


> > The noise/grain level of the digital image is less
than Tmax 100 in the
> > bright areas, but can be a problem in dark smooth
areas.
> 
> Paul, are you using any kind of noise reduction for
this?
> 

No, not yet.  So far it has not impacted any of the
images I'm working up.
I've just noticed it in some that I've taken (that
didn't make the grade for
enlarging due to other problems).  I really have not
explored the noise
reductions tools for digital yet, although I have used
them on film images
with some success.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------

>Print sizes vary from 8x10 to 16x20 on >my Epson 7600 using UC
>inks(Photo Black)
>usually on EnH matte or Hahnemule PH >rag.

Are you supposed to use PK with matte paper in the 7600? I don't use the 
7600 so I know nothing about it but with other Epson printers that use UC 
inks the usual recommendation is to use MK with matte paper.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "osroubek" <o.sroubek@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 8:18 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW Print


I have recently started shooting with a Canon  20D from shooting MF
then scanning on the
MInolta Mulit Pro.  I shoot in RAW format and convert with Adobe
Camera Raw in CS2.  The
MF shots were on transparency then converted to BW in PS using
usually the
channel mixer.  I
notice that the scanned film when converted to black and white
results in a better and
cleaner looking BW image and the prints are also noticeably better in
terms of contrast and
depth. Print sizes vary from 8x10 to 16x20 on my Epson 7600 using UC
inks(Photo Black)
usually on EnH matte or Hahnemule PH rag.  Just may be me but I was
wondering what
others may think and
would greatly
appreciate any comments.  I have tried some of the plugins out there
for BW conversion
but I think the result is similar to that obtained in PS.






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

What does HDR stand for.

Gary

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW Print


>
> <The limited latitude of the sensor requires bracketing in many shots,
> also
> not the usual sun-lit scenic.>
>
> Have you tried HDR in CS2?
>
> My first attempt last night looked terrible. I didn't even try to print
> the image.
>

My attempts to use HDR have not been good either.  The noise has increased,
and the moving parts (leaves, branches, etc.) are a mess, even with the
software's alleged "detail matching" ability.

When the camera is on a tripod, manually merging digital images is much
easier than with film originals.  If the camera and focus were not moved,
the clone can be aligned at, for example, the upper left corner (1,1) and it
appears it'll be perfectly aligned for the entire frame.

If the focus has been changed, for example for zone focusing, once the
magnification differences are adjusted for (I measure points in the frames
with the selection tool rectangle size), and the clone tool has been aligned
on a point in the scene, the one alignment also has stayed acceptable for
the entire relevant area, at least with my Canon 24mm (distortions of some
lenses like zooms can make this more difficult).

Paul
www.PaulRoark.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 "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

High Dynami Range
 


Gary Brown <baffin@...> wrote:
What does HDR stand for.

Gary

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Roark" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW Print


>
> > also
> not the usual sun-lit scenic.>
>
> Have you tried HDR in CS2?
>
> My first attempt last night looked terrible. I didn't even try to print
> the image.
>

My attempts to use HDR have not been good either. The noise has increased,
and the moving parts (leaves, branches, etc.) are a mess, even with the
software's alleged "detail matching" ability.

When the camera is on a tripod, manually merging digital images is much
easier than with film originals. If the camera and focus were not moved,
the clone can be aligned at, for example, the upper left corner (1,1) and it
appears it'll be perfectly aligned for the entire frame.

If the focus has been changed, for example for zone focusing, once the
magnification differences are adjusted for (I measure points in the frames
with the selection tool rectangle size), and the clone tool has been aligned
on a point in the scene, the one alignment also has stayed acceptable for
the entire relevant area, at least with my Canon 24mm (distortions of some
lenses like zooms can make this more difficult).

Paul
www.PaulRoark.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 "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











Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links








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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> "Osroubek" wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I have recently started shooting with a Canon  20D from shooting 
MF
> > then scanning on the Minolta Multi Pro.  I shoot in RAW format 
and 
> >convert with Adobe Camera Raw in CS2.  The
> > MF shots were on transparency then converted to BW in PS using
> > usually the channel mixer.  
> >I notice that the scanned film when converted to black and white
> > results in a better and cleaner looking BW image ...
> 
> I have also started using the 8 MP Canon chip in the XT and 
enlarge to 16 x
> 20.  My other cameras are MF.  What I've found is that the 8 mp 
chip can
> make a 16 x 20 that is very close to the film shot, but it 
probably takes
> more work.  Here are some of my observations. (The shot I just 
worked up is
> on my web page, below.)
>  
> The limited latitude of the sensor requires bracketing in many 
shots, also
> not the usual sun-lit scenic.
> 
> The noise/grain level of the digital image is less than Tmax 100 
in the
> bright areas, but can be a problem in dark smooth areas.
> 
> The depth of field advantages of the small sensor are significant.
> 
> CS2 smart sharpening is very useful, but still not enough (or I'm 
not good
> enough with it) to avoid too-bright small highlights in some areas 
by the
> time the image is sharp enough.  To correct for this, I have to us 
a curve
> to pull these down in the affected area.
> 
> The very high contrast edges may require that the green channel 
alone be
> used.  The green channel, maybe because it has 2 sensors, seems to 
give the
> best image in some areas.
> 
> I have not found third party raw converters to be better than the 
CS2
> download.
> 
> Overall, based on very limited experience, I'd say 8 mp can make a 
good 16 x
> 20 -- not perfect, but then neither is MF 100 ISO film.  Neither 
can match
> MF Tech Pan, but that film is history (aside from the pile in my 
freezer).
> Finding workflows to get around the limited latitude is probably 
the area
> where more work is most needed.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

I went an checked out your website to see the image you were talking 
about. A very impressive image. You talk about the extra work needed 
to produce this image from a digital capture. I may be reading you 
wrong, but are you saying that if you had been using film, you could 
have gotten the same or better results with a single exposure? and 
less manipulation?

>... are you saying that if you had been using film, you could
> have gotten the same or better results with a single exposure? and
> less manipulation?

I'm not sure about the single exposure.  I didn't have my spot meter with me
for the digital shot -- a mistake I won't make in the future.  Given the
"slide-like" 7 stop dynamic range, I'm going back to carrying my Pentax spot
meter.

Medium format, Tech Pan film would probably have ended up making a better
image with less manipulation, however.  Also, I would have been able to
print larger than 16x20 with MF TP.

MF Tmax 100 would probably not have made as good an image, however.  The
grain in the foggy parts of the image would have shown.  With the Canon 8 mp
image, the foggy areas are totally smooth, and I really like that.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

__________________________

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> Jasutis
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 5:47 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW Print
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > "Osroubek" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I have recently started shooting with a Canon  20D from shooting
> MF
> > > then scanning on the Minolta Multi Pro.  I shoot in RAW format
> and
> > >convert with Adobe Camera Raw in CS2.  The
> > > MF shots were on transparency then converted to BW in PS using
> > > usually the channel mixer.
> > >I notice that the scanned film when converted to black and white
> > > results in a better and cleaner looking BW image ...
> >
> > I have also started using the 8 MP Canon chip in the XT and
> enlarge to 16 x
> > 20.  My other cameras are MF.  What I've found is that the 8 mp
> chip can
> > make a 16 x 20 that is very close to the film shot, but it
> probably takes
> > more work.  Here are some of my observations. (The shot I just
> worked up is
> > on my web page, below.)
> >
> > The limited latitude of the sensor requires bracketing in many
> shots, also
> > not the usual sun-lit scenic.
> >
> > The noise/grain level of the digital image is less than Tmax 100
> in the
> > bright areas, but can be a problem in dark smooth areas.
> >
> > The depth of field advantages of the small sensor are significant.
> >
> > CS2 smart sharpening is very useful, but still not enough (or I'm
> not good
> > enough with it) to avoid too-bright small highlights in some areas
> by the
> > time the image is sharp enough.  To correct for this, I have to us
> a curve
> > to pull these down in the affected area.
> >
> > The very high contrast edges may require that the green channel
> alone be
> > used.  The green channel, maybe because it has 2 sensors, seems to
> give the
> > best image in some areas.
> >
> > I have not found third party raw converters to be better than the
> CS2
> > download.
> >
> > Overall, based on very limited experience, I'd say 8 mp can make a
> good 16 x
> > 20 -- not perfect, but then neither is MF 100 ISO film.  Neither
> can match
> > MF Tech Pan, but that film is history (aside from the pile in my
> freezer).
> > Finding workflows to get around the limited latitude is probably
> the area
> > where more work is most needed.
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> I went an checked out your website to see the image you were talking
> about. A very impressive image. You talk about the extra work needed
> to produce this image from a digital capture. I may be reading you
> wrong, but are you saying that if you had been using film, you could
> have gotten the same or better results with a single exposure? and
> less manipulation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

I've not been very scientific in comparing my film scans (135) vs. DSLR
pics (D70), but I find that while the latter are usually "smoother," 
noise in the
shadows can often be a problem. Generally speaking, I find noise more
objectionable than grain (excepting a "salt/pepper" grain I get in some 
scans
and which just screws any sharpening attempts). But that's an aesthetic
judgement kind of thing - think of Ralph Gibson's work for an extreme case.

Also, while I'm a very happy film-scanner/digi-shooter/digi-B&W printer 
hobbyist,
I'm recently coming back around to the conclusion that a wet print from 
a "pro
lab" (whatever that means, but I don't wet print myself) is hard to 
beat. A buddy
of mine just showed me a series of wet prints (from Chrome in Wash, DC) 
of a
recent jazz gig he took on 135 format P3200, and I was pretty blown 
away. Yes,
some grain, but nice looking grain :-) Anyway, nicer than anything I've ever
gotten out of scanning P3200.

Not a "dis" on the digital route. I'm pretty happy working with the digi 
tools I
have at hand.

Happy shooting and printing.

Scott

Paul Roark wrote:

> >... are you saying that if you had been using film, you could
> > have gotten the same or better results with a single exposure? and
> > less manipulation?
>
> I'm not sure about the single exposure. I didn't have my spot meter 
> with me
> for the digital shot -- a mistake I won't make in the future. Given the
> "slide-like" 7 stop dynamic range, I'm going back to carrying my 
> Pentax spot
> meter.
>
> Medium format, Tech Pan film would probably have ended up making a better
> image with less manipulation, however. Also, I would have been able to
> print larger than 16x20 with MF TP.
>
> MF Tmax 100 would probably not have made as good an image, however. The
> grain in the foggy parts of the image would have shown. With the Canon 
> 8 mp
> image, the foggy areas are totally smooth, and I really like that.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
> __________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> > Jasutis
> > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 5:47 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW Print
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> > <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > > "Osroubek" wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I have recently started shooting with a Canon 20D from shooting
> > MF
> > > > then scanning on the Minolta Multi Pro. I shoot in RAW format
> > and
> > > >convert with Adobe Camera Raw in CS2. The
> > > > MF shots were on transparency then converted to BW in PS using
> > > > usually the channel mixer.
> > > >I notice that the scanned film when converted to black and white
> > > > results in a better and cleaner looking BW image ...
> > >
> > > I have also started using the 8 MP Canon chip in the XT and
> > enlarge to 16 x
> > > 20. My other cameras are MF. What I've found is that the 8 mp
> > chip can
> > > make a 16 x 20 that is very close to the film shot, but it
> > probably takes
> > > more work. Here are some of my observations. (The shot I just
> > worked up is
> > > on my web page, below.)
> > >
> > > The limited latitude of the sensor requires bracketing in many
> > shots, also
> > > not the usual sun-lit scenic.
> > >
> > > The noise/grain level of the digital image is less than Tmax 100
> > in the
> > > bright areas, but can be a problem in dark smooth areas.
> > >
> > > The depth of field advantages of the small sensor are significant.
> > >
> > > CS2 smart sharpening is very useful, but still not enough (or I'm
> > not good
> > > enough with it) to avoid too-bright small highlights in some areas
> > by the
> > > time the image is sharp enough. To correct for this, I have to us
> > a curve
> > > to pull these down in the affected area.
> > >
> > > The very high contrast edges may require that the green channel
> > alone be
> > > used. The green channel, maybe because it has 2 sensors, seems to
> > give the
> > > best image in some areas.
> > >
> > > I have not found third party raw converters to be better than the
> > CS2
> > > download.
> > >
> > > Overall, based on very limited experience, I'd say 8 mp can make a
> > good 16 x
> > > 20 -- not perfect, but then neither is MF 100 ISO film. Neither
> > can match
> > > MF Tech Pan, but that film is history (aside from the pile in my
> > freezer).
> > > Finding workflows to get around the limited latitude is probably
> > the area
> > > where more work is most needed.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> > I went an checked out your website to see the image you were talking
> > about. A very impressive image. You talk about the extra work needed
> > to produce this image from a digital capture. I may be reading you
> > wrong, but are you saying that if you had been using film, you could
> > have gotten the same or better results with a single exposure? and
> > less manipulation?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
>
>     * Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" on
>       the web.
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

The difference between film and digital is (excause the abuse of the 
term) how the grain shows up. In film the grain tends to show up at 
higher light leves - zones 6 up. In digital the "grain" which is really 
noise shows up at the lower levels - zones 3 down. The difference comes 
from different physics producing the effects of grain. In the digital it 
is the preamp noise that would be there - even assuming the sensor was 
noise free. The signal levels are simply closer to the noise floor and 
as such the values are impacted more my the noise than the high level 
signals resulting from bright objects. In other words in the shadows the 
signal to noise ratio is low while in the midleves up it is high.

As long as you have a pre amp and ADC in the circuit there is no way to 
eliminate this fully. As Paul noted placement of values is extremely 
important because of this and I suspect for critical work no mater how 
good they are the in camera meters are not sufficient and a good old 
fashion spot meter would prove very helpful. When I am doing critical 
work - be it with my 4x5 field camera or my digital - I use my spot meter.

It is very interesting to think that Adams developed the Zone System in 
order to get proper placement of values on film so as to control the 
highlights (minimize blocking and grain). With a digitial camera it is 
just as useful except in this case it is to minimimize the impact of 
noise on the shadows.

Truman

Paul Roark wrote:

>>... are you saying that if you had been using film, you could
>>have gotten the same or better results with a single exposure? and
>>less manipulation?
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not sure about the single exposure.  I didn't have my spot meter with me
>for the digital shot -- a mistake I won't make in the future.  Given the
>"slide-like" 7 stop dynamic range, I'm going back to carrying my Pentax spot
>meter.
>
>Medium format, Tech Pan film would probably have ended up making a better
>image with less manipulation, however.  Also, I would have been able to
>print larger than 16x20 with MF TP.
>
>MF Tmax 100 would probably not have made as good an image, however.  The
>grain in the foggy parts of the image would have shown.  With the Canon 8 mp
>image, the foggy areas are totally smooth, and I really like that.
>
>Paul
>www.PaulRoark.com 
>
>_
>


-- 

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create 
the universe."

- Carl Sagan

> 
> I'm not sure about the single exposure.  I didn't have my spot 
meter with me
> for the digital shot -- a mistake I won't make in the future.  
Given the
> "slide-like" 7 stop dynamic range, I'm going back to carrying my 
Pentax spot
> meter.
> 
> Medium format, Tech Pan film would probably have ended up making a 
better
> image with less manipulation, however.  Also, I would have been 
able to
> print larger than 16x20 with MF TP.
> 
> MF Tmax 100 would probably not have made as good an image, 
however.  The
> grain in the foggy parts of the image would have shown.  With the 
Canon 8 mp
> image, the foggy areas are totally smooth, and I really like that.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> __________________________
> 
Thanks for the reply -- that image just looked to have way to big a 
range to have ever been taken as a single exposure to me. Since I 
don't have any Tech Pan in the freezer, it looks like I can happily 
spend my time learning to use my 20D without feeling as though I am 
at too big a disadvantage.

Just struck me as funny that we are comparing the output of a chip, 
smaller than a 35mm neg, to medium format film, and the results are 
close enough to even need a debate.

Just 'expose to the right' for maximum signal capture to constant noise
level.  Do your "placement" back at your desk.

> From: Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:38:59 -0400
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW Print
> 
> The difference between film and digital is (excause the abuse of the
> term) how the grain shows up. In film the grain tends to show up at
> higher light leves - zones 6 up. In digital the "grain" which is really
> noise shows up at the lower levels - zones 3 down. The difference comes
> from different physics producing the effects of grain. In the digital it
> is the preamp noise that would be there - even assuming the sensor was
> noise free. The signal levels are simply closer to the noise floor and
> as such the values are impacted more my the noise than the high level
> signals resulting from bright objects. In other words in the shadows the
> signal to noise ratio is low while in the midleves up it is high.
> 
> As long as you have a pre amp and ADC in the circuit there is no way to
> eliminate this fully. As Paul noted placement of values is extremely
> important because of this and I suspect for critical work no mater how
> good they are the in camera meters are not sufficient and a good old
> fashion spot meter would prove very helpful. When I am doing critical
> work - be it with my 4x5 field camera or my digital - I use my spot meter.
> 
> It is very interesting to think that Adams developed the Zone System in
> order to get proper placement of values on film so as to control the
> highlights (minimize blocking and grain). With a digitial camera it is
> just as useful except in this case it is to minimimize the impact of
> noise on the shadows.
> 
> Truman
> 
> Paul Roark wrote:
> 
>>> ... are you saying that if you had been using film, you could
>>> have gotten the same or better results with a single exposure? and
>>> less manipulation?
>>>    
>>> 
>> 
>> I'm not sure about the single exposure.  I didn't have my spot meter with me
>> for the digital shot -- a mistake I won't make in the future.  Given the
>> "slide-like" 7 stop dynamic range, I'm going back to carrying my Pentax spot
>> meter.
>> 
>> Medium format, Tech Pan film would probably have ended up making a better
>> image with less manipulation, however.  Also, I would have been able to
>> print larger than 16x20 with MF TP.
>> 
>> MF Tmax 100 would probably not have made as good an image, however.  The
>> grain in the foggy parts of the image would have shown.  With the Canon 8 mp
>> image, the foggy areas are totally smooth, and I really like that.
>> 
>> Paul
>> www.PaulRoark.com
>> 
>

A further note. I think that, multiple exposures for
controlling dynamic range aside, it is perhaps more
imperative than ever with digital that ND filters be
used to control highlights. This allows opening the
foreground (more shadow) to stay as far away from the
noise floor as possible. I don't think the issue is so
much digital vs film as it is understanding the
characteristics of each so that proper exposures
within the limitations can be produced.

Reading reports from the pros quickly shows that they
believe more than ever in getting the exposure correct
"in camera." 

woody

--- Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
The difference between film and digital is (excause
the abuse of the 
term) how the grain shows up. In film the grain tends
to show up at 
higher light leves - zones 6 up. In digital the
"grain" which is really 
noise shows up at the lower levels - zones 3 down. The
difference comes 
from different physics producing the effects of grain.
In the digital it 
is the preamp noise that would be there - even
assuming the sensor was 
noise free. The signal levels are simply closer to the
noise floor and 
as such the values are impacted more my the noise than
the high level 
signals resulting from bright objects. In other words
in the shadows the 
signal to noise ratio is low while in the midleves up
it is high.

As long as you have a pre amp and ADC in the circuit
there is no way to 
eliminate this fully. As Paul noted placement of
values is extremely 
important because of this and I suspect for critical
work no mater how 
good they are the in camera meters are not sufficient
and a good old 
fashion spot meter would prove very helpful. When I am
doing critical 
work - be it with my 4x5 field camera or my digital -
I use my spot meter.

It is very interesting to think that Adams developed
the Zone System in 
order to get proper placement of values on film so as
to control the 
highlights (minimize blocking and grain). With a
digitial camera it is 
just as useful except in this case it is to minimimize
the impact of 
noise on the shadows.

Truman

Paul Roark wrote:

>>... are you saying that if you had been using film,
you could
>>have gotten the same or better results with a single
exposure? and
>>less manipulation?
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not sure about the single exposure.  I didn't
have my spot meter with me
>for the digital shot -- a mistake I won't make in the
future.  Given the
>"slide-like" 7 stop dynamic range, I'm going back to
carrying my Pentax spot
>meter.
>
>Medium format, Tech Pan film would probably have
ended up making a better
>image with less manipulation, however.  Also, I would
have been able to
>print larger than 16x20 with MF TP.
>
>MF Tmax 100 would probably not have made as good an
image, however.  The
>grain in the foggy parts of the image would have
shown.  With the Canon 8 mp
>image, the foggy areas are totally smooth, and I
really like that.
>
>Paul
>www.PaulRoark.com 
>
>_
>


-- 

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you
must first create 
the universe."

- Carl Sagan

 

 



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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------

whoops  Obviously I meant ND grads!

woody

--- Elwood Spedden <elwood@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
A further note. I think that, multiple exposures for
controlling dynamic range aside, it is perhaps more
imperative than ever with digital that ND filters be
used to control highlights. This allows opening the
foreground (more shadow) to stay as far away from the
noise floor as possible. I don't think the issue is so
much digital vs film as it is understanding the
characteristics of each so that proper exposures
within the limitations can be produced.

Reading reports from the pros quickly shows that they
believe more than ever in getting the exposure correct
"in camera." 

woody

--- Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
The difference between film and digital is (excause
the abuse of the 
term) how the grain shows up. In film the grain tends
to show up at 
higher light leves - zones 6 up. In digital the
"grain" which is really 
noise shows up at the lower levels - zones 3 down. The
difference comes 
from different physics producing the effects of grain.
In the digital it 
is the preamp noise that would be there - even
assuming the sensor was 
noise free. The signal levels are simply closer to the
noise floor and 
as such the values are impacted more my the noise than
the high level 
signals resulting from bright objects. In other words
in the shadows the 
signal to noise ratio is low while in the midleves up
it is high.

As long as you have a pre amp and ADC in the circuit
there is no way to 
eliminate this fully. As Paul noted placement of
values is extremely 
important because of this and I suspect for critical
work no mater how 
good they are the in camera meters are not sufficient
and a good old 
fashion spot meter would prove very helpful. When I am
doing critical 
work - be it with my 4x5 field camera or my digital -
I use my spot meter.

It is very interesting to think that Adams developed
the Zone System in 
order to get proper placement of values on film so as
to control the 
highlights (minimize blocking and grain). With a
digitial camera it is 
just as useful except in this case it is to minimimize
the impact of 
noise on the shadows.

Truman

Paul Roark wrote:

>>... are you saying that if you had been using film,
you could
>>have gotten the same or better results with a single
exposure? and
>>less manipulation?
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not sure about the single exposure.  I didn't
have my spot meter with me
>for the digital shot -- a mistake I won't make in the
future.  Given the
>"slide-like" 7 stop dynamic range, I'm going back to
carrying my Pentax spot
>meter.
>
>Medium format, Tech Pan film would probably have
ended up making a better
>image with less manipulation, however.  Also, I would
have been able to
>print larger than 16x20 with MF TP.
>
>MF Tmax 100 would probably not have made as good an
image, however.  The
>grain in the foggy parts of the image would have
shown.  With the Canon 8 mp
>image, the foggy areas are totally smooth, and I
really like that.
>
>Paul
>www.PaulRoark.com 
>
>_
>


-- 

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you
must first create 
the universe."

- Carl Sagan

 

 



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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------





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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------

Personally I am surprised that they haven't added an auto "expose to the
right but without blowing and channel's highlights" exposure setting and the
ability to automatically bracket down (only) from that.  This would be very
smart.  

> From: Elwood Spedden <elwood@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW Print
> 
> A further note. I think that, multiple exposures for
> controlling dynamic range aside, it is perhaps more
> imperative than ever with digital that ND filters be
> used to control highlights. This allows opening the
> foreground (more shadow) to stay as far away from the
> noise floor as possible. I don't think the issue is so
> much digital vs film as it is understanding the
> characteristics of each so that proper exposures
> within the limitations can be produced.
> 
> Reading reports from the pros quickly shows that they
> believe more than ever in getting the exposure correct
> "in camera." 
> 
> woody
>

How does an ND filter help hwew?  It's just the same as closing down the lens by x f/stop(s).
 
Tom Baker

Elwood Spedden <elwood@...> wrote:
A further note. I think that, multiple exposures for
controlling dynamic range aside, it is perhaps more
imperative than ever with digital that ND filters be
used to control highlights. This allows opening the
foreground (more shadow) to stay as far away from the
noise floor as possible. I don't think the issue is so
much digital vs film as it is understanding the
characteristics of each so that proper exposures
within the limitations can be produced.

Reading reports from the pros quickly shows that they
believe more than ever in getting the exposure correct
"in camera." 

woody

--- Truman Prevatt wrote:


---------------------------------
The difference between film and digital is (excause
the abuse of the 
term) how the grain shows up. In film the grain tends
to show up at 
higher light leves - zones 6 up. In digital the
"grain" which is really 
noise shows up at the lower levels - zones 3 down. The
difference comes 
from different physics producing the effects of grain.
In the digital it 
is the preamp noise that would be there - even
assuming the sensor was 
noise free. The signal levels are simply closer to the
noise floor and 
as such the values are impacted more my the noise than
the high level 
signals resulting from bright objects. In other words
in the shadows the 
signal to noise ratio is low while in the midleves up
it is high.

As long as you have a pre amp and ADC in the circuit
there is no way to 
eliminate this fully. As Paul noted placement of
values is extremely 
important because of this and I suspect for critical
work no mater how 
good they are the in camera meters are not sufficient
and a good old 
fashion spot meter would prove very helpful. When I am
doing critical 
work - be it with my 4x5 field camera or my digital -
I use my spot meter.

It is very interesting to think that Adams developed
the Zone System in 
order to get proper placement of values on film so as
to control the 
highlights (minimize blocking and grain). With a
digitial camera it is 
just as useful except in this case it is to minimimize
the impact of 
noise on the shadows.

Truman

Paul Roark wrote:

>>... are you saying that if you had been using film,
you could
>>have gotten the same or better results with a single
exposure? and
>>less manipulation?
>> 
>>
>
>I'm not sure about the single exposure. I didn't
have my spot meter with me
>for the digital shot -- a mistake I won't make in the
future. Given the
>"slide-like" 7 stop dynamic range, I'm going back to
carrying my Pentax spot
>meter.
>
>Medium format, Tech Pan film would probably have
ended up making a better
>image with less manipulation, however. Also, I would
have been able to
>print larger than 16x20 with MF TP.
>
>MF Tmax 100 would probably not have made as good an
image, however. The
>grain in the foggy parts of the image would have
shown. With the Canon 8 mp
>image, the foggy areas are totally smooth, and I
really like that.
>
>Paul
>www.PaulRoark.com 
>
>_
>


-- 

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you
must first create 
the universe."

- Carl Sagan







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


Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.


---------------------------------





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links








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

Err I meant "ANY channel's highlights".

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:33:02 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW Print
> 
> Personally I am surprised that they haven't added an auto "expose to the
> right but without blowing and channel's highlights" exposure setting and the
> ability to automatically bracket down (only) from that.  This would be very
> smart.  
>

Tom

sorry........I corrected that in a subsequent email to
read ND Grads. This allows the sky to be stopped down
separately from the foreground which is where the
shadows will be.

woody

--- Tom Baker <tbaker1328@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
How does an ND filter help hwew?  It's just the same
as closing down the lens by x f/stop(s).
 
Tom Baker

Elwood Spedden <elwood@...> wrote:
A further note. I think that, multiple exposures for
controlling dynamic range aside, it is perhaps more
imperative than ever with digital that ND filters be
used to control highlights. This allows opening the
foreground (more shadow) to stay as far away from the
noise floor as possible. I don't think the issue is so
much digital vs film as it is understanding the
characteristics of each so that proper exposures
within the limitations can be produced.

Reading reports from the pros quickly shows that they
believe more than ever in getting the exposure correct
"in camera." 

woody

--- Truman Prevatt wrote:


---------------------------------
The difference between film and digital is (excause
the abuse of the 
term) how the grain shows up. In film the grain tends
to show up at 
higher light leves - zones 6 up. In digital the
"grain" which is really 
noise shows up at the lower levels - zones 3 down. The
difference comes 
from different physics producing the effects of grain.
In the digital it 
is the preamp noise that would be there - even
assuming the sensor was 
noise free. The signal levels are simply closer to the
noise floor and 
as such the values are impacted more my the noise than
the high level 
signals resulting from bright objects. In other words
in the shadows the 
signal to noise ratio is low while in the midleves up
it is high.

As long as you have a pre amp and ADC in the circuit
there is no way to 
eliminate this fully. As Paul noted placement of
values is extremely 
important because of this and I suspect for critical
work no mater how 
good they are the in camera meters are not sufficient
and a good old 
fashion spot meter would prove very helpful. When I am
doing critical 
work - be it with my 4x5 field camera or my digital -
I use my spot meter.

It is very interesting to think that Adams developed
the Zone System in 
order to get proper placement of values on film so as
to control the 
highlights (minimize blocking and grain). With a
digitial camera it is 
just as useful except in this case it is to minimimize
the impact of 
noise on the shadows.

Truman

Paul Roark wrote:

>>... are you saying that if you had been using film,
you could
>>have gotten the same or better results with a single
exposure? and
>>less manipulation?
>> 
>>
>
>I'm not sure about the single exposure. I didn't
have my spot meter with me
>for the digital shot -- a mistake I won't make in the
future. Given the
>"slide-like" 7 stop dynamic range, I'm going back to
carrying my Pentax spot
>meter.
>
>Medium format, Tech Pan film would probably have
ended up making a better
>image with less manipulation, however. Also, I would
have been able to
>print larger than 16x20 with MF TP.
>
>MF Tmax 100 would probably not have made as good an
image, however. The
>grain in the foggy parts of the image would have
shown. With the Canon 8 mp
>image, the foggy areas are totally smooth, and I
really like that.
>
>Paul
>www.PaulRoark.com 
>
>_
>


-- 

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you
must first create 
the universe."

- Carl Sagan







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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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


Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.


---------------------------------





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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links








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



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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------

Steve

You get exactly that in the new Nikon D2X and D2Hs. It
can be very helpful

woody

--- Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Err I meant "ANY channel's highlights".


> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> Reply-To:
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:33:02 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW
Print
> 
> Personally I am surprised that they haven't added an
auto "expose to the
> right but without blowing and channel's highlights"
exposure setting and the
> ability to automatically bracket down (only) from
that.  This would be very
> smart.  
>




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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------

He must mean a graduated ND filter.



How does an ND filter help hwew?  It's just the same as closing down the 
lens by x f/stop(s).

Tom Baker

Elwood Spedden <elwood@...> wrote:
A further note. I think that, multiple exposures for
controlling dynamic range aside, it is perhaps more
imperative than ever with digital that ND filters be
used to control highlights. This allows opening the
foreground (more shadow) to stay as far away from the
noise floor as possible. I don't think the issue is so
much digital vs film as it is understanding the
characteristics of each so that proper exposures
within the limitations can be produced.

Reading reports from the pros quickly shows that they
believe more than ever in getting the exposure correct
"in camera."

woody

--- Truman Prevatt wrote:


---------------------------------
The difference between film and digital is (excause
the abuse of the
term) how the grain shows up. In film the grain tends
to show up at
higher light leves - zones 6 up. In digital the
"grain" which is really
noise shows up at the lower levels - zones 3 down. The
difference comes
from different physics producing the effects of grain.
In the digital it
is the preamp noise that would be there - even
assuming the sensor was
noise free. The signal levels are simply closer to the
noise floor and
as such the values are impacted more my the noise than
the high level
signals resulting from bright objects. In other words
in the shadows the
signal to noise ratio is low while in the midleves up
it is high.

As long as you have a pre amp and ADC in the circuit
there is no way to
eliminate this fully. As Paul noted placement of
values is extremely
important because of this and I suspect for critical
work no mater how
good they are the in camera meters are not sufficient
and a good old
fashion spot meter would prove very helpful. When I am
doing critical
work - be it with my 4x5 field camera or my digital -
I use my spot meter.

It is very interesting to think that Adams developed
the Zone System in
order to get proper placement of values on film so as
to control the
highlights (minimize blocking and grain). With a
digitial camera it is
just as useful except in this case it is to minimimize
the impact of
noise on the shadows.

Truman

Paul Roark wrote:

>>... are you saying that if you had been using film,
you could
>>have gotten the same or better results with a single
exposure? and
>>less manipulation?
>>
>>
>
>I'm not sure about the single exposure. I didn't
have my spot meter with me
>for the digital shot -- a mistake I won't make in the
future. Given the
>"slide-like" 7 stop dynamic range, I'm going back to
carrying my Pentax spot
>meter.
>
>Medium format, Tech Pan film would probably have
ended up making a better
>image with less manipulation, however. Also, I would
have been able to
>print larger than 16x20 with MF TP.
>
>MF Tmax 100 would probably not have made as good an
image, however. The
>grain in the foggy parts of the image would have
shown. With the Canon 8 mp
>image, the foggy areas are totally smooth, and I
really like that.
>
>Paul
>www.PaulRoark.com
>
>_
>


-- 

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you
must first create
the universe."

- Carl Sagan







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


Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.


---------------------------------





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links








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



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

Woody,

Do you own a D2X?
What was your previous camera?

Thoughts...?

Thanks,
Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Elwood Spedden 
<elwood@w...> wrote:

> Steve
> 
> You get exactly that in the new Nikon D2X and D2Hs. It
> can be very helpful
> 
> woody
> 
> --- Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Err I meant "ANY channel's highlights".
> 
> 
> > From: Steve Kale <stevekale@b...>
> > Reply-To:
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:33:02 +0100
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW
> Print
> > 
> > Personally I am surprised that they haven't added an
> auto "expose to the
> > right but without blowing and channel's highlights"
> exposure setting and the
> > ability to automatically bracket down (only) from
> that.  This would be very
> > smart.  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>   
>     Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
> the web.
>    
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>    
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
> 
>   
> ---------------------------------

This only will work till you reach the dynamic range of the sensor then 
the fighlights will be saturated. For high dynamic range scenes - you 
really need to get it right at the camera. CCD's have the nasty 
properity of "leaking" charge if one pixel when they go in saturation.

Truman

Steve Kale wrote:

>Just 'expose to the right' for maximum signal capture to constant noise
>level.  Do your "placement" back at your desk.
>
>
>  
>


-- 

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create 
the universe."

- Carl Sagan

There is an interesting thread over at the Adobe Camera Raw forums regarding how metering 
with digital is different than film. The gist of the info provided, by Jeff Schewe and Bruce 
Fraser, is using a spot meter and exposure to the right is the way to go since the last 1/5 of 
the histogram holds nearly half of all the recorded info. Basically expose for the highlights all 
the way to the right. But most digital cameras histograms are not that accurate...as it 
interprets a rendered jpeg file and leaves safe head room to hold highlight detail...meaning 
purposely underexposing. 

It's a long thread and the metering discussion begins at post #20

http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?7@...1heBscCKO.22@.
3bb6a869.3bbb1172/24

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Jasutis"
<jimj1946@y...> wrote:
...
> Just struck me as funny that we are comparing the output of a chip, 
> smaller than a 35mm neg, to medium format film, and the results are 
> close enough to even need a debate.

I have to say, I don't think there is any debate at all, and I have a
1DS. Maybe the mk2 blurs the difference a bit more, but right now I
prefer film.
I realize this begins to get subjective at a certain point, and these
conversations get very old on many lists I'm on, but I'm just missing
something when it comes to the appeal of these files over any film
larger than 35. Even for 35, I may prefer the film grain to this
cottage cheese.
Digital has brought in so many new photography enthusiates (that's
good) that I wonder how many people making some of these comparisions
have even had that much experience with film, and getting the most out
of it. The quality of the film scan would also have a huge impact on
these comparisons.
I really don't want to start a digital/film debate, I'm just not sure
I'm seeing what others are seeing.
Tyler

If I understand what your saying, then for quick shooting, would it be
advantageous to auto bracket shots when shooting digital then?
DSLR's are rather automated beasts. I don't do this currently, but
maybe I should. Thoughts?

Scott

Truman Prevatt wrote:

> The difference between film and digital is (excause the abuse of the
> term) how the grain shows up. In film the grain tends to show up at
> higher light leves - zones 6 up. In digital the "grain" which is really
> noise shows up at the lower levels - zones 3 down. The difference comes
> from different physics producing the effects of grain. In the digital it
> is the preamp noise that would be there - even assuming the sensor was
> noise free. The signal levels are simply closer to the noise floor and
> as such the values are impacted more my the noise than the high level
> signals resulting from bright objects. In other words in the shadows the
> signal to noise ratio is low while in the midleves up it is high.
>
> As long as you have a pre amp and ADC in the circuit there is no way to
> eliminate this fully. As Paul noted placement of values is extremely
> important because of this and I suspect for critical work no mater how
> good they are the in camera meters are not sufficient and a good old
> fashion spot meter would prove very helpful. When I am doing critical
> work - be it with my 4x5 field camera or my digital - I use my spot meter.
>
> It is very interesting to think that Adams developed the Zone System in
> order to get proper placement of values on film so as to control the
> highlights (minimize blocking and grain). With a digitial camera it is
> just as useful except in this case it is to minimimize the impact of
> noise on the shadows.
>
> Truman
>
> Paul Roark wrote:
>
> >>... are you saying that if you had been using film, you could
> >>have gotten the same or better results with a single exposure? and
> >>less manipulation?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I'm not sure about the single exposure. I didn't have my spot meter 
> with me
> >for the digital shot -- a mistake I won't make in the future. Given the
> >"slide-like" 7 stop dynamic range, I'm going back to carrying my 
> Pentax spot
> >meter.
> >
> >Medium format, Tech Pan film would probably have ended up making a better
> >image with less manipulation, however. Also, I would have been able to
> >print larger than 16x20 with MF TP.
> >
> >MF Tmax 100 would probably not have made as good an image, however. The
> >grain in the foggy parts of the image would have shown. With the 
> Canon 8 mp
> >image, the foggy areas are totally smooth, and I really like that.
> >
> >Paul
> >www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >_
> >
>
>
> -- 
>
> "If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create
> the universe."
>
> - Carl Sagan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
>
>     * Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" on
>       the web.
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Even when I shoot with a 4x5 with film I take more than one shot of the 
same image at different exposure settings. Bracketing would not be a bad 
ideal - memory cards are really cheap for what you get.

Truman

Scott McLoughlin wrote:

>If I understand what your saying, then for quick shooting, would it be
>advantageous to auto bracket shots when shooting digital then?
>DSLR's are rather automated beasts. I don't do this currently, but
>maybe I should. Thoughts?
>
>Scott
>
>  
>


-- 

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create 
the universe."

- Carl Sagan

It depends on your camera and raw processing software.  Experiment to see
what works for you.  The type of shot, landscape, wedding, magic-hour, etc.
makes a difference as well.
I have a 1Ds and a Rebel XT.  My 1Ds exposure needs to be all the way to the
right within about 1/3 stop for best results.  I use +/- 2/3 stop
autobracket _always_.  The XT seems to have much more latitude; so much more
that I rarely bracket with it.  I only shoot raw, FWIW.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Scott
McLoughlin
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 4:37 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW Print

If I understand what your saying, then for quick shooting, would it be
advantageous to auto bracket shots when shooting digital then?
DSLR's are rather automated beasts. I don't do this currently, but
maybe I should. Thoughts?

Scott

Yes I am lucky to own a D2X. Prior to that I had both
a D1X and a D100. Frankly, the D70 is a better camera
than the D100 and while I still love the D1X the many
many advantages of the D2X were just too much to pass
up. I have been using now for about three months and I
don't regret the decision to spend that much money at
all.

woody

--- scott_now_coming <scott_now_coming@...>
wrote:


---------------------------------
Woody,

Do you own a D2X?
What was your previous camera?

Thoughts...?

Thanks,
Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
Elwood Spedden 
<elwood@w...> wrote:
> Steve
> 
> You get exactly that in the new Nikon D2X and D2Hs.
It
> can be very helpful
> 
> woody
> 
> --- Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Err I meant "ANY channel's highlights".
> 
> 
> > From: Steve Kale <stevekale@b...>
> > Reply-To:
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:33:02 +0100
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW
> Print
> > 
> > Personally I am surprised that they haven't added
an
> auto "expose to the
> > right but without blowing and channel's
highlights"
> exposure setting and the
> > ability to automatically bracket down (only) from
> that.  This would be very
> > smart.  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>   
>     Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint"
on
> the web.
>    
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
> 
>
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>    
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
> 
>   
> ---------------------------------




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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------

This should be compulsory reading for anyone with a digital camera.

> From: John Vitollo <jvlist@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:00:24 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Metering for Digital was:....Digital vs scan for BW
> Print
> 
> There is an interesting thread over at the Adobe Camera Raw forums regarding
> how metering 
> with digital is different than film. The gist of the info provided, by Jeff
> Schewe and Bruce 
> Fraser, is using a spot meter and exposure to the right is the way to go since
> the last 1/5 of 
> the histogram holds nearly half of all the recorded info. Basically expose for
> the highlights all
> the way to the right. But most digital cameras histograms are not that
> accurate...as it 
> interprets a rendered jpeg file and leaves safe head room to hold highlight
> detail...meaning 
> purposely underexposing.
> 
> It's a long thread and the metering discussion begins at post #20
> 
> http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?7@...1heBscCKO.22@.
> 3bb6a869.3bbb1172/24
>

this thread is no longer in the Adobe forum. Darn!

woody

--- John Vitollo <jvlist@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
There is an interesting thread over at the Adobe
Camera Raw forums regarding how metering 
with digital is different than film. The gist of the
info provided, by Jeff Schewe and Bruce 
Fraser, is using a spot meter and exposure to the
right is the way to go since the last 1/5 of 
the histogram holds nearly half of all the recorded
info. Basically expose for the highlights all 
the way to the right. But most digital cameras
histograms are not that accurate...as it 
interprets a rendered jpeg file and leaves safe head
room to hold highlight detail...meaning 
purposely underexposing. 

It's a long thread and the metering discussion begins
at post #20

http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?7@...1heBscCKO.22@.
3bb6a869.3bbb1172/24





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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------

At the risk of repeating......The sensor is only going
to have 6 or seven stops of range. If you are shooting
a high contrast scene bracketing is only going to help
if you merge the images in photoshop and "clean things
up."  The best solution is to use ND grads to
"compress the scene to a number of stops your sensor
can handle. ND's are typically sold in 1,2 or 3 stop
versions. The best solution, when possible, is to get
it right in the camera and not depend on
post-processing to do major tweaks.

woody


--- Scott McLoughlin <scott@...> wrote:

> If I understand what your saying, then for quick
> shooting, would it be
> advantageous to auto bracket shots when shooting
> digital then?
> DSLR's are rather automated beasts. I don't do this
> currently, but
> maybe I should. Thoughts?
> 
> Scott
> 
> Truman Prevatt wrote:
> 
> > The difference between film and digital is
> (excause the abuse of the
> > term) how the grain shows up. In film the grain
> tends to show up at
> > higher light leves - zones 6 up. In digital the
> "grain" which is really
> > noise shows up at the lower levels - zones 3 down.
> The difference comes
> > from different physics producing the effects of
> grain. In the digital it
> > is the preamp noise that would be there - even
> assuming the sensor was
> > noise free. The signal levels are simply closer to
> the noise floor and
> > as such the values are impacted more my the noise
> than the high level
> > signals resulting from bright objects. In other
> words in the shadows the
> > signal to noise ratio is low while in the midleves
> up it is high.
> >
> > As long as you have a pre amp and ADC in the
> circuit there is no way to
> > eliminate this fully. As Paul noted placement of
> values is extremely
> > important because of this and I suspect for
> critical work no mater how
> > good they are the in camera meters are not
> sufficient and a good old
> > fashion spot meter would prove very helpful. When
> I am doing critical
> > work - be it with my 4x5 field camera or my
> digital - I use my spot meter.
> >
> > It is very interesting to think that Adams
> developed the Zone System in
> > order to get proper placement of values on film so
> as to control the
> > highlights (minimize blocking and grain). With a
> digitial camera it is
> > just as useful except in this case it is to
> minimimize the impact of
> > noise on the shadows.
> >
> > Truman
> >
> > Paul Roark wrote:
> >
> > >>... are you saying that if you had been using
> film, you could
> > >>have gotten the same or better results with a
> single exposure? and
> > >>less manipulation?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >I'm not sure about the single exposure. I didn't
> have my spot meter 
> > with me
> > >for the digital shot -- a mistake I won't make in
> the future. Given the
> > >"slide-like" 7 stop dynamic range, I'm going back
> to carrying my 
> > Pentax spot
> > >meter.
> > >
> > >Medium format, Tech Pan film would probably have
> ended up making a better
> > >image with less manipulation, however. Also, I
> would have been able to
> > >print larger than 16x20 with MF TP.
> > >
> > >MF Tmax 100 would probably not have made as good
> an image, however. The
> > >grain in the foggy parts of the image would have
> shown. With the 
> > Canon 8 mp
> > >image, the foggy areas are totally smooth, and I
> really like that.
> > >
> > >Paul
> > >www.PaulRoark.com
> > >
> > >_
> > >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> >
> > "If you want to make an apple pie from scratch,
> you must first create
> > the universe."
> >
> > - Carl Sagan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and
> Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> > AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
> >
> >     * Visit your group
> "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >      
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>"
> on
> >       the web.
> >     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> email to:
> >      
>
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >      
>
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of
> >       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
=== message truncated ===

Likely more like 8.5

> From: Elwood Spedden <elwood@...>
 
> At the risk of repeating......The sensor is only going
> to have 6 or seven stops of range.

As I read the thread it is only the "flash blown highlight" warning that was
very conservative on earlier models.  I must admit I had always taken a test
shot and then tried to see the histogram, re-exposed and then re-taken the
shot.  I say "tried" because it can be VERY difficult to see the histogram
(at least on the 1Ds MKII) clearly in bright sunshine, particularly if you
are looking at it/them split for R, G and B.  Shouldn't the rendered jpeg
still be okay - a curve won't affect the end points? (the jpeg doesn't
adjust the exposure)

The Minolta spot meter that is referenced is exactly what's needed.  The
next best thing would be an in camera exposure mode that exposed for
preservation of the highlights.  It would not account for highlights we
don't mind blowing but it would be better than the current metering systems.
I was not aware that this was a feature of the Nikons.

> From: John Vitollo <jvlist@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:00:24 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Metering for Digital was:....Digital vs scan for BW
> Print
> 
> There is an interesting thread over at the Adobe Camera Raw forums regarding
> how metering 
> with digital is different than film. The gist of the info provided, by Jeff
> Schewe and Bruce 
> Fraser, is using a spot meter and exposure to the right is the way to go since
> the last 1/5 of 
> the histogram holds nearly half of all the recorded info. Basically expose for
> the highlights all
> the way to the right. But most digital cameras histograms are not that
> accurate...as it 
> interprets a rendered jpeg file and leaves safe head room to hold highlight
> detail...meaning 
> purposely underexposing.
> 
> It's a long thread and the metering discussion begins at post #20
> 
> http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?7@...1heBscCKO.22@.
> 3bb6a869.3bbb1172/24
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Elwood Spedden 
<elwood@w...> wrote:
> this thread is no longer in the Adobe forum. Darn!
> 
> woody
> 
> --- John Vitollo <jvlist@c...> wrote:
> 
> 
>Woody,
 I'm reading it right now. Just copy and paste both parts of the 
address.

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny

Due to their obvious cutoff I've found that the ND grads don't offer
seamless control of high values. Although I don't use digital for 'serious'
capture I find that bracketing film exposures and combining the different
exposures in PS offers an easy, convincing and variable degree of control
for extremely wide scene brightness ranges. Digital capture would allow the
same control. We see a lot of inappropriate/sloppy use of ND grads that
resemble sloppy burns in the darkroom.

Rick

www.richardmurai.com
http://www.hawaii.edu/mjournal/text/issues/descriptions/cambodia04.html

> At the risk of repeating......The sensor is only going
> to have 6 or seven stops of range. If you are shooting
> a high contrast scene bracketing is only going to help
> if you merge the images in photoshop and "clean things
> up."  The best solution is to use ND grads to
> "compress the scene to a number of stops your sensor
> can handle. ND's are typically sold in 1,2 or 3 stop
> versions. The best solution, when possible, is to get
> it right in the camera and not depend on
> post-processing to do major tweaks.
> 
> woody
> 
> 
> --- Scott McLoughlin <scott@...> wrote:
> 
>> If I understand what your saying, then for quick
>> shooting, would it be
>> advantageous to auto bracket shots when shooting
>> digital then?
>> DSLR's are rather automated beasts. I don't do this
>> currently, but
>> maybe I should. Thoughts?
>> 
>> Scott
>>

> http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?7@...1heBscCKO.22@
> 3bb6a869.3bbb1172/24

> this thread is no longer in the Adobe forum. Darn!
> woody

It's still there...could be the link was cutoff.

Try this link: http://tinyurl.com/bxjht

If you still can not find it go to: http://www.adobeforums.com/
	>Photoshop >Adobe Camera Raw

The title is "Raw 3.1 professional custom profiles for highend digital cameras"

> I thought this thing was all about RAW. And that with the new CS2 version they
> have a macro in there to help you with the idea of OPENING UP the same image
> at two different densities. Something which people were already doing with the
> first CS. (8?) 
>  A whole different ballgame technique and workaround wise than doing two
> different exposures which you¹d think would require a tripod and a static
> subject matter.
> The whole RAW thing is amazing. Enough to make a convert out of you. :)




Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





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

thanks johnny

--- Johnny Eades <jeades1@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
Elwood Spedden 
<elwood@w...> wrote:
> this thread is no longer in the Adobe forum. Darn!
> 
> woody
> 
> --- John Vitollo <jvlist@c...> wrote:
> 
> 
>Woody,
 I'm reading it right now. Just copy and paste both
parts of the 
address.

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny





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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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.


  

      SPONSORED LINKS  
                                               
Digital photography technique                         
          Digital photography                         
          Digital photography software                
                                              
Photography school                                   
Professional digital photography                      
             Stock photography                        
                          
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------

Woody,

What subject matter do you photograph and do you make prints 20"x24" 
or larger?

I wondering what the print quality difference is between the D2X and 
the D70 with "large" prints?

Some are saying the D2X produces files with "detail" to rival or 
exceed the 1DsMkII.

Thanks,

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Elwood Spedden 
<elwood@w...> wrote:

> Yes I am lucky to own a D2X. Prior to that I had both
> a D1X and a D100. Frankly, the D70 is a better camera
> than the D100 and while I still love the D1X the many
> many advantages of the D2X were just too much to pass
> up. I have been using now for about three months and I
> don't regret the decision to spend that much money at
> all.
> 
> woody
> 
> --- scott_now_coming <scott_now_coming@y...>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Woody,
> 
> Do you own a D2X?
> What was your previous camera?
> 
> Thoughts...?
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> Elwood Spedden 
> <elwood@w...> wrote:
> > Steve
> > 
> > You get exactly that in the new Nikon D2X and D2Hs.
> It
> > can be very helpful
> > 
> > woody
> > 
> > --- Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> > Err I meant "ANY channel's highlights".
> > 
> > 
> > > From: Steve Kale <stevekale@b...>
> > > Reply-To:
> > <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:33:02 +0100
> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW
> > Print
> > > 
> > > Personally I am surprised that they haven't added
> an
> > auto "expose to the
> > > right but without blowing and channel's
> highlights"
> > exposure setting and the
> > > ability to automatically bracket down (only) from
> > that.  This would be very
> > > smart.  
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> >   
> >     Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint"
> on
> > the web.
> >    
> >     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> > 
> >
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >    
> >     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo!
> > Terms of Service.
> > 
> >   
> > ---------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>   
>     Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
> the web.
>    
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>    
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
> 
>   
> ---------------------------------

But, detail at what size?
 
Tom Baker


scott_now_coming <scott_now_coming@yahoo.com> wrote:
Woody,

What subject matter do you photograph and do you make prints 20"x24" 
or larger?

I wondering what the print quality difference is between the D2X and 
the D70 with "large" prints?

Some are saying the D2X produces files with "detail" to rival or 
exceed the 1DsMkII.

Thanks,

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Elwood Spedden 
wrote:
> Yes I am lucky to own a D2X. Prior to that I had both
> a D1X and a D100. Frankly, the D70 is a better camera
> than the D100 and while I still love the D1X the many
> many advantages of the D2X were just too much to pass
> up. I have been using now for about three months and I
> don't regret the decision to spend that much money at
> all.
> 
> woody
> 
> --- scott_now_coming 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Woody,
> 
> Do you own a D2X?
> What was your previous camera?
> 
> Thoughts...?
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> Elwood Spedden 
> wrote:
> > Steve
> > 
> > You get exactly that in the new Nikon D2X and D2Hs.
> It
> > can be very helpful
> > 
> > woody
> > 
> > --- Steve Kale wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> > Err I meant "ANY channel's highlights".
> > 
> > 
> > > From: Steve Kale 
> > > Reply-To:
> > 
> > > Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:33:02 +0100
> > > To: 
> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW
> > Print
> > > 
> > > Personally I am surprised that they haven't added
> an
> > auto "expose to the
> > > right but without blowing and channel's
> highlights"
> > exposure setting and the
> > > ability to automatically bracket down (only) from
> > that. This would be very
> > > smart. 
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint"
> on
> > the web.
> > 
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> > 
> >
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo!
> > Terms of Service.
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
> the web.
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links








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

Detail contained within the file.

Of course the 1DsMKII is fullframe and the Nikon isn't. Though, I 
understand that is to Nikon's advantage.

Here is just one example of what I'm talking about:

"As we have proved in our comparisons the step in resolution from 12 
MP to 16 MP; 16% isn't as big as you may expect (it's not for 
instance as big as the step from 8 MP to 12 MP; 22%). Thus at a nice-
lens-buying difference of $3,000 the D2X offers much better value for 
money than Canon's EOS-1Ds Mark II. Don't doubt Nikon's strategy of 
sticking to a cropped sensor. The advantage of only using the 'sweet 
spot' area of the lens is clear, full size 35 mm sensors may have 
long been the dream of the digital photographer but they do place 
much bigger demands on the lens." 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/page28.asp

I would rather upgrade to the Mamiya ZD and skip 35mm, but I may need 
more "pixles" before the ZD is availible. That's why I asked.

Scott



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> But, detail at what size?
>  
> Tom Baker
> 
> 
> scott_now_coming <scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
> Woody,
> 
> What subject matter do you photograph and do you make prints 
20"x24" 
> or larger?
> 
> I wondering what the print quality difference is between the D2X 
and 
> the D70 with "large" prints?
> 
> Some are saying the D2X produces files with "detail" to rival or 
> exceed the 1DsMkII.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Scott
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Elwood Spedden 
> wrote:
> > Yes I am lucky to own a D2X. Prior to that I had both
> > a D1X and a D100. Frankly, the D70 is a better camera
> > than the D100 and while I still love the D1X the many
> > many advantages of the D2X were just too much to pass
> > up. I have been using now for about three months and I
> > don't regret the decision to spend that much money at
> > all.
> > 
> > woody
> > 
> > --- scott_now_coming 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> > Woody,
> > 
> > Do you own a D2X?
> > What was your previous camera?
> > 
> > Thoughts...?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Scott
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> > Elwood Spedden 
> > wrote:
> > > Steve
> > > 
> > > You get exactly that in the new Nikon D2X and D2Hs.
> > It
> > > can be very helpful
> > > 
> > > woody
> > > 
> > > --- Steve Kale wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Err I meant "ANY channel's highlights".
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > From: Steve Kale 
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > 
> > > > Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:33:02 +0100
> > > > To: 
> > > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW
> > > Print
> > > > 
> > > > Personally I am surprised that they haven't added
> > an
> > > auto "expose to the
> > > > right but without blowing and channel's
> > highlights"
> > > exposure setting and the
> > > > ability to automatically bracket down (only) from
> > > that. This would be very
> > > > smart. 
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint"
> > on
> > > the web.
> > > 
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> > to:
> > > 
> > >
> > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > 
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > Yahoo!
> > > Terms of Service.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ---------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
> > the web.
> > 
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > 
> > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of Service.
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed 
from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules 
and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the 
group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" 
in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT 
THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP 
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, 
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER 
INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL 
BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF 
SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE 
THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT 
OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) 
ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Scott

First I can't comment on differences between the
1DSMkll and the D2X but I would bet they are both
wonderful. (Too many people find it cool to defend to
the death one manufacturer over another but it
probably doesn't represent the truth)

What I do know is that the D2X is a wonderful image
maker and I am pleased to own it. I have been a Nikon
user for many years and the investment I have in Nikon
glass is such that I can't and wouldn't want to just
want to throw it out.

Facts are if you spend time evaluating images the pros
are making with either system, you conclude that the
hardware is more than able to keep up with us image
makers. 

I feel that this is a wonderful time for all of us.
There is more than enough technology than we require
to make great images. If you prefer Nikon or Canon, go
for it. If you are already invested in one or the
other system, don't sweat it, enjoy it. The real pros
will make phenomenal images, regardless.

I am a Nikon guy , no apologies. If others are Canon
Guys..........make great images!

We should all be in wonder at what has been made
available to us to do our things. Gosh, 30 years ago
we had so few choices!

Enjoy and make great images
woody

--- scott_now_coming <scott_now_coming@...>
wrote:


---------------------------------
Woody,

What subject matter do you photograph and do you make
prints 20"x24" 
or larger?

I wondering what the print quality difference is
between the D2X and 
the D70 with "large" prints?

Some are saying the D2X produces files with "detail"
to rival or 
exceed the 1DsMkII.

Thanks,

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
Elwood Spedden 
<elwood@w...> wrote:
> Yes I am lucky to own a D2X. Prior to that I had
both
> a D1X and a D100. Frankly, the D70 is a better
camera
> than the D100 and while I still love the D1X the
many
> many advantages of the D2X were just too much to
pass
> up. I have been using now for about three months and
I
> don't regret the decision to spend that much money
at
> all.
> 
> woody
> 
> --- scott_now_coming <scott_now_coming@y...>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Woody,
> 
> Do you own a D2X?
> What was your previous camera?
> 
> Thoughts...?
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> Elwood Spedden 
> <elwood@w...> wrote:
> > Steve
> > 
> > You get exactly that in the new Nikon D2X and
D2Hs.
> It
> > can be very helpful
> > 
> > woody
> > 
> > --- Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> > Err I meant "ANY channel's highlights".
> > 
> > 
> > > From: Steve Kale <stevekale@b...>
> > > Reply-To:
> > <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:33:02 +0100
> > > To:
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW
> > Print
> > > 
> > > Personally I am surprised that they haven't
added
> an
> > auto "expose to the
> > > right but without blowing and channel's
> highlights"
> > exposure setting and the
> > > ability to automatically bracket down (only)
from
> > that.  This would be very
> > > smart.  
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> >   
> >     Visit your group
"DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint"
> on
> > the web.
> >    
> >     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> > 
> >
>
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >    
> >     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo!
> > Terms of Service.
> > 
> >   
> > ---------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>   
>     Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint"
on
> the web.
>    
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
> 
>
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>    
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
> 
>   
> ---------------------------------




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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------

> ... The advantage of only using the 'sweet spot' 
> area of the lens is clear, ...

I think this is a bogus argument that is used mostly as a way to sell
obsolete lenses to digital camera owners.  For a given price point and all
else being equal, the larger the image circle, the poorer the lens will be.
One doesn't get something for nothing.  Covering more area requires more of
an optical design, not to mention heavier, larger lenses.

Likewise, the need in the full-frame cameras to keep the rear element away
from the mirror requires a greater sensor to lens space than the smaller
digital sensors require.  This is significant for wide angle lenses.  One
reason many prefer rangefinder cameras is that their symmetrical-design wide
angle lenses are better than the retro-focus SLR lenses.  True, with digital
we may be stuck with retro-focus due to the problem of more light fall-off
caused by the sensors when the light angle gets too low, but the old
full-frame clearance distance is probably way more than optimal when one is
balancing all the factors that must be considered in the design.

For example, I'm a big fan of the Canon tilt and shift lenses, but that big
image circle and radical retro-focus design makes the 24 and even 45mm TS
lenses weaklings when it comes to resolution, etc.  My 45 TS is an expensive
lens, and it's the poorest lens I've used on the Rebel -- visibly inferior.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

One forum, two discussions not more than a week apart. 
In one dynamic range is 6 to 8.5 stops and in the other the 12 bit
(~12 stop) ADCs are limiting the dynamic range too much.  
Readers are going to have to be very careful what they take away from
this (I am not saying that anyone has written something false, just
that careful interpretation is required).  

No film for me now (partly due to dermatitis).

I'd have said 8~10 stops (best total system dynamic range), with care,
but a different look than most film (i.e. similar or larger range but
different look).  A friend who always *hated* XP2 was reminded of XP2
by some (not particularly good prints) of mine.  I took it that he was
not impressed. Looking at another shot in different light, his opinion
was at the opposite extreme.  Same camera same lens same ISO and not
so different processing. 

One of the best and worst things about computer-based image
manipulation is the spectacular range of options that are readily
available.  The chance of people coming to the same conclusion about
what is best is small.

I've found the only approach is to try everything (and try hard) and
decide.  

The best CCD/CMOS sensors are more light sensitive that film for a
given mid-tone image noise.  That gives me great freedom to explore
many photographic situations in poor light that were impractical with
film.  Other applications quite easily give the other result.

Ken


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:

> Likely more like 8.5

> 
> > From: Elwood Spedden <elwood@w...>
>  
> > At the risk of repeating......The sensor is only going
> > to have 6 or seven stops of range.

I have no particular beef with APS-C sized sensors, but I can't think 
right away
of any real size advantages we're getting from the gear makers.  My 
Leica and
CV prime lenses are still considerably smaller than any Nikon primes 
that I'm
aware of (and most kick butt to boot).  My one DX lens (12-24 AF-S) is not
of a diminutive stature :-)

Are we ever really going to get smaller optics for the smaller sensors?

Scott

Paul Roark wrote:

> > ... The advantage of only using the 'sweet spot'
> > area of the lens is clear, ...
>
> I think this is a bogus argument that is used mostly as a way to sell
> obsolete lenses to digital camera owners.  For a given price point and all
> else being equal, the larger the image circle, the poorer the lens 
> will be.
> One doesn't get something for nothing.  Covering more area requires 
> more of
> an optical design, not to mention heavier, larger lenses.
>
>

Can someone please tell me where the Forum on B&W Digital Printing is?
 It seems to have moved somewhere else.

Regards,
Clayton


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

It's a little bit to the left.

On Jul 8, 2005, at 11:09 AM, Clayton Jones wrote:

> Can someone please tell me where the Forum on B&W Digital Printing is?
> It seems to have moved somewhere else.
>
> Regards,
> Clayton
>
>
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>



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

Now to the right...come on catch up  :-)

> From: Mark Savoia <mark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:23:42 -0400
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW Print
> 
> It's a little bit to the left.
> 
> On Jul 8, 2005, at 11:09 AM, Clayton Jones wrote:
> 
>> Can someone please tell me where the Forum on B&W Digital Printing is?
>> It seems to have moved somewhere else.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Clayton
>> 
>> 
>> Info on black and white digital printing at
>> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

I wrote a piece 'Digital Exposure: Getting it Right' in March 2004 that 
said much the same:

http://photography.about.com/cs/digital/a/a030104.htm

And there wasn't much original in it at the time!

This kind of advice has been around for a long time, but yes, if there 
are still people around who haven't read it, then they should do so.

I even come across photographers occasionally who don't realise the 
advantages of shooting raw despite me and others writing about it over 
two years ago. And it is still being debated on some lists.

Regards,

Peter

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     +44 (0)1784 456474
31 Budebury Rd, STAINES, Middx, TW18 2AZ, UK
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Steve Kale wrote:

>This should be compulsory reading for anyone with a digital camera.
>
>
>  
>
>>From: John Vitollo <jvlist@...>
>>Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>>Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:00:24 -0000
>>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>>Subject: [Digital BW] Metering for Digital was:....Digital vs scan for BW
>>Print
>>
>>There is an interesting thread over at the Adobe Camera Raw forums regarding
>>how metering 
>>with digital is different than film. The gist of the info provided, by Jeff
>>Schewe and Bruce 
>>Fraser, is using a spot meter and exposure to the right is the way to go since
>>the last 1/5 of 
>>the histogram holds nearly half of all the recorded info. Basically expose for
>>the highlights all
>>the way to the right. But most digital cameras histograms are not that
>>accurate...as it 
>>interprets a rendered jpeg file and leaves safe head room to hold highlight
>>detail...meaning 
>>purposely underexposing.
>>
>>It's a long thread and the metering discussion begins at post #20
>>
>>http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?7@...1heBscCKO.22@.
>>3bb6a869.3bbb1172/24
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>

Paul,

I think your criticism is simply of the particular Canon shift lens you 
own, and unfair in that you are talking of using it for something it was 
not designed for. For years I shot almost everything I took on 35mm on 
an Olympus shift lens, and it was an excellent performer, sharp into the 
corners even at full shift. Just a pity it doesn't fit on my Nikon.

There are a lot of reviews that do seem to show the 'sweet spot' 
argument is a good one, and also of course using lenses with a larger 
images circle gives less vignetting, which is more of a problem with 
digital than it ever was on film.

However the main point of some of the reviews is that some lenses 
designed for film are not capable of getting the best out of some 
digital cameras (even full-frame digital.) This is true of some very 
expensive glass that performs well on film. Lens designers do usually 
now claim to be designing for digital, and this does seem to mean 
something, not just marketing talk.

Although the lack of a mirror made it possible to design great 
wide-angles for rangefinders (and I'm a great fan of some of these, with 
a 15mm, 21mm, 24mm and 28mm that are great as well as an 'interesting' 
35mm f1.4) unfortunately they don't seem to suit digital cameras.

Regards

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     +44 (0)1784 456474
31 Budebury Rd, STAINES, Middx, TW18 2AZ, UK
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Paul Roark wrote:

>>... The advantage of only using the 'sweet spot' 
>>area of the lens is clear, ...
>>    
>>
>
>I think this is a bogus argument that is used mostly as a way to sell
>obsolete lenses to digital camera owners.  For a given price point and all
>else being equal, the larger the image circle, the poorer the lens will be.
>One doesn't get something for nothing.  Covering more area requires more of
>an optical design, not to mention heavier, larger lenses.
>
>Likewise, the need in the full-frame cameras to keep the rear element away
>from the mirror requires a greater sensor to lens space than the smaller
>digital sensors require.  This is significant for wide angle lenses.  One
>reason many prefer rangefinder cameras is that their symmetrical-design wide
>angle lenses are better than the retro-focus SLR lenses.  True, with digital
>we may be stuck with retro-focus due to the problem of more light fall-off
>caused by the sensors when the light angle gets too low, but the old
>full-frame clearance distance is probably way more than optimal when one is
>balancing all the factors that must be considered in the design.
>
>For example, I'm a big fan of the Canon tilt and shift lenses, but that big
>image circle and radical retro-focus design makes the 24 and even 45mm TS
>lenses weaklings when it comes to resolution, etc.  My 45 TS is an expensive
>lens, and it's the poorest lens I've used on the Rebel -- visibly inferior.
>
>Paul
>www.PaulRoark.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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>

Peter,

> 
> I think your criticism is simply of the particular Canon shift lens you
> own,

The fact that the lens is both a shift and tilt exacerbates the problems.
It suffers from the wider image circle as well as the greater rear element
to film distance (more radical retro-focus design).

> and unfair in that you are talking of using it for something it was
> not designed for.

I have owned 5 Canon tilt shift lenses, all of which were for film cameras.
I love what then can do, but optically, the wide angle ones are just not up
to the standards I expect of good 35 mm lenses.

> For years I shot almost everything I took on 35mm on
> an Olympus shift lens, and it was an excellent performer, sharp into the
> corners even at full shift. Just a pity it doesn't fit on my Nikon.

The shift-only lenses only have half the problems of the tilt-shift.

But, to get equal quality from a larger image circle, it takes a better,
more expensive lens.  I'll bet you paid a premium for that lens.


> There are a lot of reviews that do seem to show the 'sweet spot'
> argument is a good one,

The "sweet spot" of especially a wide angle lens is going to be better than
it's edge.  But, again, all else being equal, a designer could make a better
lens all the way to the edge if the circle could be smaller.  It's a
trade-off.  More money, of course, can allow them to make great retro-focus
lenses with huge image circles.  But they would cost a bundle.  Cost is a
huge factor.

I'd guess, for example, that the Canon 16 - 35 L is about as good as the new
Tokina digital 12-24 -- but the Canon is 3 times the cost.

> However the main point of some of the reviews is that some lenses
> designed for film are not capable of getting the best out of some
> digital cameras (even full-frame digital.) This is true of some very
> expensive glass that performs well on film. Lens designers do usually
> now claim to be designing for digital, and this does seem to mean
> something, not just marketing talk.

> Although the lack of a mirror made it possible to design great
> wide-angles for rangefinders (and I'm a great fan of some of these, with
> a 15mm, 21mm, 24mm and 28mm that are great as well as an 'interesting'
> 35mm f1.4) unfortunately they don't seem to suit digital cameras.


Exactly, in addition to the greater need for anti-reflection coating on the
rear element, I assume you've seen the un-processed wide angle shots on the
Epson Leica copy.  They are outrageous.  The light fall-off is terrible.
The obtuse angle of the light that the non-retro-focus (outstanding) Leica
or Cosina lenses result in produces a huge problem.  While raw processing
can take care of it, in part, this is yet another factor that robs our very
scarce dynamic range.  Until there is a major advance in digital sensors,
symmetric wide angles are probably not serious contenders, which means those
who buy these digital Leicas for their great wide angles may be
disappointed.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

Have you had your sample checked out by Canon Repair?
The TS45 is a pretty  highly regarded lens on cameras
with much higher resolution than your Rebel.

Guy

--- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> Peter,
> 
> > 
> > I think your criticism is simply of the particular
> Canon shift lens you
> > own,
> 
> The fact that the lens is both a shift and tilt
> exacerbates the problems.
> It suffers from the wider image circle as well as
> the greater rear element
> to film distance (more radical retro-focus design).
> 
> > and unfair in that you are talking of using it for
> something it was
> > not designed for.
> 
> I have owned 5 Canon tilt shift lenses, all of which
> were for film cameras.
> I love what then can do, but optically, the wide
> angle ones are just not up
> to the standards I expect of good 35 mm lenses.
> 
> > For years I shot almost everything I took on 35mm
> on
> > an Olympus shift lens, and it was an excellent
> performer, sharp into the
> > corners even at full shift. Just a pity it doesn't
> fit on my Nikon.
> 
> The shift-only lenses only have half the problems of
> the tilt-shift.
> 
> But, to get equal quality from a larger image
> circle, it takes a better,
> more expensive lens.  I'll bet you paid a premium
> for that lens.
> 
> 
> > There are a lot of reviews that do seem to show
> the 'sweet spot'
> > argument is a good one,
> 
> The "sweet spot" of especially a wide angle lens is
> going to be better than
> it's edge.  But, again, all else being equal, a
> designer could make a better
> lens all the way to the edge if the circle could be
> smaller.  It's a
> trade-off.  More money, of course, can allow them to
> make great retro-focus
> lenses with huge image circles.  But they would cost
> a bundle.  Cost is a
> huge factor.
> 
> I'd guess, for example, that the Canon 16 - 35 L is
> about as good as the new
> Tokina digital 12-24 -- but the Canon is 3 times the
> cost.
> 
> > However the main point of some of the reviews is
> that some lenses
> > designed for film are not capable of getting the
> best out of some
> > digital cameras (even full-frame digital.) This is
> true of some very
> > expensive glass that performs well on film. Lens
> designers do usually
> > now claim to be designing for digital, and this
> does seem to mean
> > something, not just marketing talk.
> 
> > Although the lack of a mirror made it possible to
> design great
> > wide-angles for rangefinders (and I'm a great fan
> of some of these, with
> > a 15mm, 21mm, 24mm and 28mm that are great as well
> as an 'interesting'
> > 35mm f1.4) unfortunately they don't seem to suit
> digital cameras.
> 
> 
> Exactly, in addition to the greater need for
> anti-reflection coating on the
> rear element, I assume you've seen the un-processed
> wide angle shots on the
> Epson Leica copy.  They are outrageous.  The light
> fall-off is terrible.
> The obtuse angle of the light that the
> non-retro-focus (outstanding) Leica
> or Cosina lenses result in produces a huge problem. 
> While raw processing
> can take care of it, in part, this is yet another
> factor that robs our very
> scarce dynamic range.  Until there is a major
> advance in digital sensors,
> symmetric wide angles are probably not serious
> contenders, which means those
> who buy these digital Leicas for their great wide
> angles may be
> disappointed.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 



		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions \ufffd no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

At 10:18 PM -0700 7/7/05, Paul Roark wrote (in very small part):
>[snip]
>For example, I'm a big fan of the Canon tilt and shift lenses,

[with 35mm film]?

>but that big image circle and radical retro-focus design makes the 
>24 and even 45mm TS lenses weaklings when it comes to resolution, 
>etc.

[with the Digital Rebel]?

I.e., is Canon's 24mm T/S L-class lens a strong solution _with film_ 
when it comes to resolution, etc.? If not, I wouldn't think Paul 
would be a fan of it, but I'm trying to make sure I don't read too 
much into Paul's post by taking it out of the context of his new 
digital Rebel.


I'd appreciate any advice about how best to upgrade my Canon EF 
20-35mm 1:3.5-4.5. I rarely use it below 24 and also have Canon's EF 
35mm 1:2 lens, which I can use to improve on this mediocre short zoom 
at the high end. But what about at the wider end?

I would already have bought one of Canon's newest L-class short zooms 
if I could decide which is better. But while I've been dithering, 
I've seen the 24mm T/S L-class lens mentioned as a good way to shoot 
high-resolution panoramas by shifting the lens. And that, as well as 
the DoF advantage, is appealing.

Thanks.
--
Sam

Sam,

This might be a good place to start and offer a
counterpoint to Paul's experience with TS lenses.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml

Fred Meranda's site has many reviews on these lenses
too http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

I use the 17-40 f4L on my EOS1Ds mkII and have been
very happy with the quality for landscape use.

Guy

--- Sam McCandless <samcc@...> wrote:

> At 10:18 PM -0700 7/7/05, Paul Roark wrote (in very
> small part):
> >[snip]
> >For example, I'm a big fan of the Canon tilt and
> shift lenses,
> 
> [with 35mm film]?
> 
> >but that big image circle and radical retro-focus
> design makes the 
> >24 and even 45mm TS lenses weaklings when it comes
> to resolution, 
> >etc.
> 
> [with the Digital Rebel]?
> 
> I.e., is Canon's 24mm T/S L-class lens a strong
> solution _with film_ 
> when it comes to resolution, etc.? If not, I
> wouldn't think Paul 
> would be a fan of it, but I'm trying to make sure I
> don't read too 
> much into Paul's post by taking it out of the
> context of his new 
> digital Rebel.
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate any advice about how best to upgrade
> my Canon EF 
> 20-35mm 1:3.5-4.5. I rarely use it below 24 and also
> have Canon's EF 
> 35mm 1:2 lens, which I can use to improve on this
> mediocre short zoom 
> at the high end. But what about at the wider end?
> 
> I would already have bought one of Canon's newest
> L-class short zooms 
> if I could decide which is better. But while I've
> been dithering, 
> I've seen the 24mm T/S L-class lens mentioned as a
> good way to shoot 
> high-resolution panoramas by shifting the lens. And
> that, as well as 
> the DoF advantage, is appealing.
> 
> Thanks.
> --
> Sam
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Tyler Boley wrote:


> I have to say, I don't think there is any debate at all, and I have a
> 1DS. Maybe the mk2 blurs the difference a bit more, but right now I
> prefer film.

I think the operative word here is "prefer" - there are two different 
media being spoken of here. I find they have some superficial 
similarities....

I prefer film for many applications, and digital for many others. But 
I've been using a wide range of digital cameras, including three Canon 
SLRs and several digital backs. I've definitely had enough use of the 
gear at this point to identify what works for me for different shooting 
circumstances. Whether or not I'm doing B&W output is rarely a 
determinant in the decision about what camera to use. All of that said,


> Even for 35, I may prefer the film grain to this
> cottage cheese.

> Digital has brought in so many new photography enthusiates (that's
> good) that I wonder how many people making some of these comparisions
> have even had that much experience with film, and getting the most out
> of it.

I wonder exactly the opposite. I get many experienced film users in my 
workshops who have high-end digital SLRs who don't know how to expose 
for digital. They don't know their camera's sensor is linear. Once they 
are told, they can't figure out that this means the brightest stop 
consumes half the ADUs. Sometimes they have a hard time understanding 
what "linear" means. They wonder why they get a so-called "purple 
fringe" on very contrasty boundaries. They attribute this and many other 
image problems to "blooming," but they cannot explain the physical 
mechanism of blooming, and they persist in a belief that it occurs in 
images that have no clipped pixels once they are told. They believe 
their fuzzy results are caused by crappy lenses and don't know what an 
antialiasing filter is. They think Unsharp Mask is the best way to 
sharpen their images. Many think in-camera jpeg is all you ever need. 
They don't know what "lossy compression" means. Bayer mosaic is a 
foreign concept, as is demosaicing. Many think that each pixel in the 
resulting image is from four extremely tiny photosites, such that an 8 
megapixel file was made by a camera with 32 mega-photosites (others 
think an 8 megapixel camera produces a 2 megapixel image). They make 
extreme adjustment layers to apply to their digital images which are 
equal-opportunity ruiners of film scans, then criticize the new medium 
for their poor results. They think the use of smoothing tools like Noise 
Ninja (etc) is entirely optional when shooting at ISO 800. They don't 
know the difference between a device-specific profile and a color space. 
Etc.

Now, ignorance is the original state of everyone. I'm not trying to 
brand these people stupid or say that non-willful ignorance is a moral 
issue. I'm just saying that this is a pretty standard list of 
misconceptions and mistakes that very experienced film users - many of 
whom I deeply respect - make when turning to digital cameras. 
Presumably, these people are really smart, because they are taking a 
workshop to overcome these misconceptions. But they still have the 
misconceptions. And when someone who prefers film lets fly with a 
strange criticism like "cottage cheese," it makes me wonder how much 
experience they really have with digital, and whether they are really 
knowledgeable enough to make a reasonable judgment about the medium.

With words like "cottage cheese" being used to describe your 1Ds images, 
it is no wonder to me that you prefer the look of film. The cottage 
cheese makers in our workshops are the ones who don't know how to 
expose, and/or who apply adjustments to their images that they would 
never attempt with film scans, and/or who don't bother with noise 
reduction in challenging images. That's what is happening when we see 
cottage cheese - 100% of the time.

Lest in your fashionable cynicism you accuse me of evil and nefarious 
profit-making by trading on my expertise, I should mention my workshops 
are done for no charge to participants and no payment to me, under the 
auspices of the Eagle River Camera Club. Of course then you can say 
people get what they pay for, but some people will never be happy.

--
Jeff Medkeff
Eagle River, Alaska

> Have you had your sample checked out by Canon Repair?
> The TS45 is a pretty  highly regarded lens on cameras
> with much higher resolution than your Rebel.

Yes, the 24 TS was so bad I felt it must be a defect.  I sent it to Canon,
and they said it was within specs.  I'd say it makes a great lens for
slides, and magazine-size prints, but even in magazines, I think the
distortion is visible.  It was a real disappointment, but I know I expect
too much from 35 mm.  I'm basically a medium format shooter who uses 16 x 20
as the standard size for comparisons.

>This might be a good place to start and offer a counterpoint to Paul's
>experience with TS lenses.
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml

I wish I knew more about the Canon MTF charts.  They don't seem to coincide
with what I see.  It may be that I'm looking for more fine detail than they
test for.  For example, their 24 F2.8 in my resolution tests on film and the
Rebel, looks much better than my 45 TS, yet one would not necessarily
conclude that from the MTF charts Canon posts.  I don't know what
frequencies and f stops they are displaying in those charts, and that could
be where the difference are.

Then again, maybe the current 24 TS has been re-designed after the early
sample I bought.

I suppose the safest thing is to buy from a place where you can return the
lens if it is not up to what you want it for.

I'd love a 24TS (actually wider for the smaller sensor) if it could hit the
sharpness targets I set for what I like to do.  Tilt and shift are very
useful tools.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com  

> 
> --- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> 
> > Peter,
> >
> > >
> > > I think your criticism is simply of the particular
> > Canon shift lens you
> > > own,
> >
> > The fact that the lens is both a shift and tilt
> > exacerbates the problems.
> > It suffers from the wider image circle as well as
> > the greater rear element
> > to film distance (more radical retro-focus design).
> >
> > > and unfair in that you are talking of using it for
> > something it was
> > > not designed for.
> >
> > I have owned 5 Canon tilt shift lenses, all of which
> > were for film cameras.
> > I love what then can do, but optically, the wide
> > angle ones are just not up
> > to the standards I expect of good 35 mm lenses.
> >
> > > For years I shot almost everything I took on 35mm
> > on
> > > an Olympus shift lens, and it was an excellent
> > performer, sharp into the
> > > corners even at full shift. Just a pity it doesn't
> > fit on my Nikon.
> >
> > The shift-only lenses only have half the problems of
> > the tilt-shift.
> >
> > But, to get equal quality from a larger image
> > circle, it takes a better,
> > more expensive lens.  I'll bet you paid a premium
> > for that lens.
> >
> >
> > > There are a lot of reviews that do seem to show
> > the 'sweet spot'
> > > argument is a good one,
> >
> > The "sweet spot" of especially a wide angle lens is
> > going to be better than
> > it's edge.  But, again, all else being equal, a
> > designer could make a better
> > lens all the way to the edge if the circle could be
> > smaller.  It's a
> > trade-off.  More money, of course, can allow them to
> > make great retro-focus
> > lenses with huge image circles.  But they would cost
> > a bundle.  Cost is a
> > huge factor.
> >
> > I'd guess, for example, that the Canon 16 - 35 L is
> > about as good as the new
> > Tokina digital 12-24 -- but the Canon is 3 times the
> > cost.
> >
> > > However the main point of some of the reviews is
> > that some lenses
> > > designed for film are not capable of getting the
> > best out of some
> > > digital cameras (even full-frame digital.) This is
> > true of some very
> > > expensive glass that performs well on film. Lens
> > designers do usually
> > > now claim to be designing for digital, and this
> > does seem to mean
> > > something, not just marketing talk.
> >
> > > Although the lack of a mirror made it possible to
> > design great
> > > wide-angles for rangefinders (and I'm a great fan
> > of some of these, with
> > > a 15mm, 21mm, 24mm and 28mm that are great as well
> > as an 'interesting'
> > > 35mm f1.4) unfortunately they don't seem to suit
> > digital cameras.
> >
> >
> > Exactly, in addition to the greater need for
> > anti-reflection coating on the
> > rear element, I assume you've seen the un-processed
> > wide angle shots on the
> > Epson Leica copy.  They are outrageous.  The light
> > fall-off is terrible.
> > The obtuse angle of the light that the
> > non-retro-focus (outstanding) Leica
> > or Cosina lenses result in produces a huge problem.
> > While raw processing
> > can take care of it, in part, this is yet another
> > factor that robs our very
> > scarce dynamic range.  Until there is a major
> > advance in digital sensors,
> > symmetric wide angles are probably not serious
> > contenders, which means those
> > who buy these digital Leicas for their great wide
> > angles may be
> > disappointed.
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - no fees. Bid on great items.
> http://auctions.yahoo.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 "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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

You might find Imatest helpful, especially if you can test the lens with it
and then return it if unhappy.

http://www.imatest.com/

I have to say it is an enormous mouthful but you are a very technically
capable guy and I have to believe you'd find it valuable.

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:34:57 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Digital vs scan for BW Print
> 
>> Have you had your sample checked out by Canon Repair?
>> The TS45 is a pretty  highly regarded lens on cameras
>> with much higher resolution than your Rebel.
> 
> Yes, the 24 TS was so bad I felt it must be a defect.  I sent it to Canon,
> and they said it was within specs.  I'd say it makes a great lens for
> slides, and magazine-size prints, but even in magazines, I think the
> distortion is visible.  It was a real disappointment, but I know I expect
> too much from 35 mm.  I'm basically a medium format shooter who uses 16 x 20
> as the standard size for comparisons.
> 
>> This might be a good place to start and offer a counterpoint to Paul's
>> experience with TS lenses.
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml
> 
> I wish I knew more about the Canon MTF charts.  They don't seem to coincide
> with what I see.  It may be that I'm looking for more fine detail than they
> test for.  For example, their 24 F2.8 in my resolution tests on film and the
> Rebel, looks much better than my 45 TS, yet one would not necessarily
> conclude that from the MTF charts Canon posts.  I don't know what
> frequencies and f stops they are displaying in those charts, and that could
> be where the difference are.
> 
> Then again, maybe the current 24 TS has been re-designed after the early
> sample I bought.
> 
> I suppose the safest thing is to buy from a place where you can return the
> lens if it is not up to what you want it for.
> 
> I'd love a 24TS (actually wider for the smaller sensor) if it could hit the
> sharpness targets I set for what I like to do.  Tilt and shift are very
> useful tools.  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Jeff, you have managed to take all of the least admirable aspects of
my last two posts and have them add up to something a bit harsher than
I intended, though I probably deserve it.
First of all, I am very sorry if I've have made anyone feel attacked
for offering workshops, advice, whatever, for profit or not.
But since you do indeed seem accomplished, I'm sure you know what I
mean about the preponderance of mis-information, I'll bet you fight
misconceptions in you workshops every day, your comments would imply that.
Regarding the rest-
My preference for film was in reference to files from 1DS captures at
best, and for B&W printing. I am quite sure a digital back would make
me very happy. Whether or not it would make me happier than film, I
won't say without personal lengthy experience. I don't have a mk2, and
no one has yet given me a mk2 file to print, so I don't know how much
better it will be. Again, the context was 1DS level quality, or
lessor, and strictly for B&W printing.
Regarding my experience level with digital and it's relevance to my
comments, I am aware of every issue you mention below. Of course I can
claim to be competent and have it mean anything here. I might add, you
may find Noiseware worth exploring, it may be a hair more useful than
noise ninja, haven't yet decided.
I am not making any judgments about the medium in general, only the
specifics above. I am and will continue to use digital capture when
appropriate to the task, and will advance with it as I can afford to.
I will stick to my observations and conclusions from personal
experience though. I can make an Iris size quad tone print from a drum
scanned 35mm neg and have it be more subjectively attractive than the
same size print, well processed, from my 1ds no matter how well done.
It will have artifacts and certain characteristics, every medium does,
and the crisp film grain is subjectively visually superior here. As
soon as I move up in film size, the difference becomes even clearer.
With an 8x10 print, obviously the 1ds does just fine.
Again, this is subjective, not a wholesale judgment of the medium.
Lastly, no one I know would accuse me of being fashionable.
I hope that puts a better light on my statements, my apologies if any
offended.

Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Medkeff
<medkeff@g...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Tyler Boley wrote:
> 
> 
> > I have to say, I don't think there is any debate at all, and I have a
> > 1DS. Maybe the mk2 blurs the difference a bit more, but right now I
> > prefer film.
> 
> I think the operative word here is "prefer" - there are two different 
> media being spoken of here. I find they have some superficial 
> similarities....
> 
> I prefer film for many applications, and digital for many others. But 
> I've been using a wide range of digital cameras, including three Canon 
> SLRs and several digital backs. I've definitely had enough use of the 
> gear at this point to identify what works for me for different shooting 
> circumstances. Whether or not I'm doing B&W output is rarely a 
> determinant in the decision about what camera to use. All of that said,
> 
> 
> > Even for 35, I may prefer the film grain to this
> > cottage cheese.
> 
> > Digital has brought in so many new photography enthusiates (that's
> > good) that I wonder how many people making some of these comparisions
> > have even had that much experience with film, and getting the most out
> > of it.
> 
> I wonder exactly the opposite. I get many experienced film users in my 
> workshops who have high-end digital SLRs who don't know how to expose 
> for digital. They don't know their camera's sensor is linear. Once they 
> are told, they can't figure out that this means the brightest stop 
> consumes half the ADUs. Sometimes they have a hard time understanding 
> what "linear" means. They wonder why they get a so-called "purple 
> fringe" on very contrasty boundaries. They attribute this and many
other 
> image problems to "blooming," but they cannot explain the physical 
> mechanism of blooming, and they persist in a belief that it occurs in 
> images that have no clipped pixels once they are told. They believe 
> their fuzzy results are caused by crappy lenses and don't know what an 
> antialiasing filter is. They think Unsharp Mask is the best way to 
> sharpen their images. Many think in-camera jpeg is all you ever need. 
> They don't know what "lossy compression" means. Bayer mosaic is a 
> foreign concept, as is demosaicing. Many think that each pixel in the 
> resulting image is from four extremely tiny photosites, such that an 8 
> megapixel file was made by a camera with 32 mega-photosites (others 
> think an 8 megapixel camera produces a 2 megapixel image). They make 
> extreme adjustment layers to apply to their digital images which are 
> equal-opportunity ruiners of film scans, then criticize the new medium 
> for their poor results. They think the use of smoothing tools like
Noise 
> Ninja (etc) is entirely optional when shooting at ISO 800. They don't 
> know the difference between a device-specific profile and a color
space. 
> Etc.
> 
> Now, ignorance is the original state of everyone. I'm not trying to 
> brand these people stupid or say that non-willful ignorance is a moral 
> issue. I'm just saying that this is a pretty standard list of 
> misconceptions and mistakes that very experienced film users - many of 
> whom I deeply respect - make when turning to digital cameras. 
> Presumably, these people are really smart, because they are taking a 
> workshop to overcome these misconceptions. But they still have the 
> misconceptions. And when someone who prefers film lets fly with a 
> strange criticism like "cottage cheese," it makes me wonder how much 
> experience they really have with digital, and whether they are really 
> knowledgeable enough to make a reasonable judgment about the medium.
> 
> With words like "cottage cheese" being used to describe your 1Ds
images, 

> it is no wonder to me that you prefer the look of film. The cottage 
> cheese makers in our workshops are the ones who don't know how to 
> expose, and/or who apply adjustments to their images that they would 
> never attempt with film scans, and/or who don't bother with noise 
> reduction in challenging images. That's what is happening when we see 
> cottage cheese - 100% of the time.
> 
> Lest in your fashionable cynicism you accuse me of evil and nefarious 
> profit-making by trading on my expertise, I should mention my workshops 
> are done for no charge to participants and no payment to me, under the 
> auspices of the Eagle River Camera Club. Of course then you can say 
> people get what they pay for, but some people will never be happy.
> 
> --
> Jeff Medkeff
> Eagle River, Alaska

I've posted the edges of my resolution tests of the 45 TS, 24 F2.8, and 50
all at f11.  They were all with the Rebel XT at the same relative
magnification, etc.  These are carefully controlled tests and consistent
with what I've seen with film for many years.

See http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/45TS-24-50-Res.jpg


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Well, it wasn't cheap, but I needed the shift, and for that it was a 
bargain. The alternative wasn't another 35mm lens but a larger camera 
with movements, which would have been far slower and trickier to use.

But the lens was a better performer than the wider aperture Olympus 28mm 
I also had (which was usually the alternative, rather than a 35mm for 
taking similar scenes) For the 35mm shift, cost and the slight 
inconvenience of manual operation, which with the OM was very easy to 
do, were the only things you lost on. Optically it was fine, and pretty 
well distortion free - actually I hardly knew what distortion was when I 
used OM lenses, the only one I had noticeable distortion was the 20mm. 
I've been rather less impressed with Nikon on this score, but then I 
have been using zooms rather than prime lenses.

I think tilt isn't often needed with 35mm, really only if you want to 
deliberately make use of limited depth of field by shooting wide open. 
So yet another thing that Olympus really got right.

But for digital cameras, it is really a matter of buying lenses made for 
them for best results - and I think Nikon are probably sensible to stick 
with their 18x24 or whatever sensors.

Regards,

Peter

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     +44 (0)1784 456474
31 Budebury Rd, STAINES, Middx, TW18 2AZ, UK
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Paul Roark wrote:

>Peter,
>
>  
>
>>I think your criticism is simply of the particular Canon shift lens you
>>own,
>>    
>>
>
>The fact that the lens is both a shift and tilt exacerbates the problems.
>It suffers from the wider image circle as well as the greater rear element
>to film distance (more radical retro-focus design).
>
>  
>
>>and unfair in that you are talking of using it for something it was
>>not designed for.
>>    
>>
>
>I have owned 5 Canon tilt shift lenses, all of which were for film cameras.
>I love what then can do, but optically, the wide angle ones are just not up
>to the standards I expect of good 35 mm lenses.
>
>  
>
>>For years I shot almost everything I took on 35mm on
>>an Olympus shift lens, and it was an excellent performer, sharp into the
>>corners even at full shift. Just a pity it doesn't fit on my Nikon.
>>    
>>
>
>The shift-only lenses only have half the problems of the tilt-shift.
>
>But, to get equal quality from a larger image circle, it takes a better,
>more expensive lens.  I'll bet you paid a premium for that lens.
>
>
>  
>
>>There are a lot of reviews that do seem to show the 'sweet spot'
>>argument is a good one,
>>    
>>
>
>The "sweet spot" of especially a wide angle lens is going to be better than
>it's edge.  But, again, all else being equal, a designer could make a better
>lens all the way to the edge if the circle could be smaller.  It's a
>trade-off.  More money, of course, can allow them to make great retro-focus
>lenses with huge image circles.  But they would cost a bundle.  Cost is a
>huge factor.
>
>I'd guess, for example, that the Canon 16 - 35 L is about as good as the new
>Tokina digital 12-24 -- but the Canon is 3 times the cost.
>
>  
>
>>However the main point of some of the reviews is that some lenses
>>designed for film are not capable of getting the best out of some
>>digital cameras (even full-frame digital.) This is true of some very
>>expensive glass that performs well on film. Lens designers do usually
>>now claim to be designing for digital, and this does seem to mean
>>something, not just marketing talk.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>Although the lack of a mirror made it possible to design great
>>wide-angles for rangefinders (and I'm a great fan of some of these, with
>>a 15mm, 21mm, 24mm and 28mm that are great as well as an 'interesting'
>>35mm f1.4) unfortunately they don't seem to suit digital cameras.
>>    
>>
>
>
>Exactly, in addition to the greater need for anti-reflection coating on the
>rear element, I assume you've seen the un-processed wide angle shots on the
>Epson Leica copy.  They are outrageous.  The light fall-off is terrible.
>The obtuse angle of the light that the non-retro-focus (outstanding) Leica
>or Cosina lenses result in produces a huge problem.  While raw processing
>can take care of it, in part, this is yet another factor that robs our very
>scarce dynamic range.  Until there is a major advance in digital sensors,
>symmetric wide angles are probably not serious contenders, which means those
>who buy these digital Leicas for their great wide angles may be
>disappointed.
>
>Paul
>www.PaulRoark.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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>

> The "sweet spot" of especially a wide angle lens is going to 
> be better than it's edge.  But, again, all else being equal, 
> a designer could make a better lens all the way to the edge 
> if the circle could be smaller.  It's a trade-off.  More 
> money, of course, can allow them to make great retro-focus 
> lenses with huge image circles.  But they would cost a 
> bundle.  Cost is a huge factor.
> 
> I'd guess, for example, that the Canon 16 - 35 L is about as 
> good as the new Tokina digital 12-24 -- but the Canon is 3 
> times the cost.

FWIW, the best Canon lens I've bought recently is the 10-22 for the Rebel
and the 20D.  Very sharp, nice contrast, virtually immune to flare within
reason and only $900.  Really nice b&w prints using Convert to B&W Pro.
Wide angle at last for the APS sensors.

Regards,

  Ken Carney
  www.kencarney.com

Tyler Boley wrote:



> Jeff, you have managed to take all of the least admirable aspects of
> my last two posts and have them add up to something a bit harsher than
> I intended, though I probably deserve it.

Yeah, I was focusing on the negative. Unduly, really. Actually, Tyler, 
I'm at least as grumpy and curmudgeonly as anyone here. No conclusions 
about my feelings about you, or about your perspective, should be made 
from my comments - to be frank, I was venting. I'm not feeling attacked 
and not meaning to make anyone else feel that way. Sometimes I just get 
a good bit of frustration going at some of the things I see happen, and 
have trouble keeping from writing quite explicitly about it....

It isn't that film users are stupid or evil; nor are digital users as a 
class especially brilliant in my experience. A lot of the film users I 
teach are really accomplished in that medium - they tower above me in 
that respect. I just find digital to be in many ways an apples to 
oranges comparison with film.


> I'm sure you know what I
> mean about the preponderance of mis-information,

Oooooooh yeah. Actually I can relate to what you said very closely. It 
is the "so-called" experts who load up our workshop participants with 
the misconceptions we have to work against in the first place. And it is 
far harder to correct misconceptions than it is to teach someone correct 
material to begin with.

I don't even consider myself much of an expert, except possibly at image 
capture - I might have better than average capability in that one 
specific technical area. But not in most others. You seem to know a lot 
more than I do about B&W output and film scanning, for example.

One of the guys I shoot with is looking at Noiseware; I'm planning to 
have a look when I get a little time at the end of the busy season here.


> Lastly, no one I know would accuse me of being fashionable.

Nor I. :-)

--
Jeff Medkeff
Eagle River, Alaska

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Medkeff
<medkeff@g...> wrote:
...
> I'm at least as grumpy and curmudgeonly as anyone here...

Well, you'll have to fight me for top honors in that category.
Just one more comment about this, my mention of comparing Iris size
prints from both DSLR and film scan was only to exaggerate a point.

Clearly, if one wants 30x40" B&W prints, a 1DS would probably not be
the appropriate tool to choose, assuming somewhat conventional
photographic imagery.
Tyler

Here

<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/4000-cost.shtml>

is a professional analysis of the author's costs of printing A4 and 
A3 prints on EEM on his own 4000.

The aggregate unit cost of keepers is given for each size in the last 
table at the very end of the piece. So is a link to the author's 
model.
--
Sam