Digital BW, The Print

I am getting ready to purchase a Minolta Konica scanner over 
purchasing a new digital camera because everything I have read about 
scanning a 35mm black and white negative has indicated that scanning 
has the megapixal equivalent of around 20mgpixals or above campared to 
the cameras that are out there now.

does anyone have any comments?


Art

Our world is changing. I think when you consider film cost, the time
and headache of cleaning up a file, the whole ease of workflow, you
would be smart to go with a Canon 5 D digital SLR. I've worked a lot
with these files and compared to the Nikon 9000 scans, I like them
just as good or better for output. Look, you don't have to buy or
process film, you've got better than Polaroid type of immeditate
proofing before the shoot. Everyone I know is going in the opposite
direction from 35mm analogue film and ccd scanners. If I wasn't
shooting 4x5 and drum scanning I would get rid of my Nikon scanner and
go with a Canon 5D in a hearbeat. For me there would be no contest if
I was starting down that road.

John




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Art"
<aromanocpa@...> wrote:

>
> I am getting ready to purchase a Minolta Konica scanner over 
> purchasing a new digital camera because everything I have read about 
> scanning a 35mm black and white negative has indicated that scanning 
> has the megapixal equivalent of around 20mgpixals or above campared to 
> the cameras that are out there now.
> 
> does anyone have any comments?
> 
> 
> Art
>

PanF and similar can outperform affordable Digital. But if you shoot 
high-ISO digital will provide cleaner images (especially at 3200).

Note that the Scan Dual III and IV only produce around 10MP scans, you 
aren't getting 20+MP of info from them. The 5400 will do better.

I went back to film from digital because I enjoy the process more and 
can buy a lot more camera for my money (compare the price difference 
between a $450 used F100 and a $1700 D200, that's a whole lot of film, 
and I'm shooting the even cheaper F3 currently).

Both have their advantages. Film's got dynamic range, vastly more ISO 
options (12-12,800 are easily acheivable with films on the market 
today), digital has lower recurring costs, cleaner high-ISO (well, 
800-3200) and crisper output (due to the regular pattern of the sensor, 
which is why 'modern' grain films, with their consistent grain size 
often look indistinguishable from digital).

-Adam




Art wrote:

> I am getting ready to purchase a Minolta Konica scanner over
> purchasing a new digital camera because everything I have read about
> scanning a 35mm black and white negative has indicated that scanning
> has the megapixal equivalent of around 20mgpixals or above campared to
> the cameras that are out there now.
> 
> does anyone have any comments?
> 
> 
> Art
> 
> 
>

The cost savings are not really there for 35mm (the price difference 
between a 5D and the closest film body, the Elan 7N is a whole lot of 
film, probably on the order of 2 years shooting for me). You're just 
trading ongoing cost for up-front cost.

My workflow is only slightly more time consuming than shooting RAW, of 
course I use 2 systems and multitask (I'm doing something else while the 
scanner is running) which greatly improves the time cost of shooting & 
scanning film. Also spotting dust isn't much of an issue if you can get 
the film in the scanner as soon as it's dry.

-Adam

john dean wrote:

> Our world is changing. I think when you consider film cost, the time
> and headache of cleaning up a file, the whole ease of workflow, you
> would be smart to go with a Canon 5 D digital SLR. I've worked a lot
> with these files and compared to the Nikon 9000 scans, I like them
> just as good or better for output. Look, you don't have to buy or
> process film, you've got better than Polaroid type of immeditate
> proofing before the shoot. Everyone I know is going in the opposite
> direction from 35mm analogue film and ccd scanners. If I wasn't
> shooting 4x5 and drum scanning I would get rid of my Nikon scanner and
> go with a Canon 5D in a hearbeat. For me there would be no contest if
> I was starting down that road.
> 
> John
> 
> 
>

In a message dated 3/23/06 3:47:36 PM, aromanocpa@... writes:


> I am getting ready to purchase a Minolta Konica scanner over
> purchasing a new digital camera because everything I have read about
> scanning a 35mm black and white negative has indicated that scanning
> has the megapixal equivalent of around 20mgpixals or above campared to
> the cameras that are out there now.
> 
> does anyone have any comments?
> 

You should buy a film camera because you like shooting film, or a digital 
camera because you prefer the immediacy of digital. The idea that you'll get more 
data from 35mm film that the current digital SLRs is pretty questionable; 
there will certainly be more pixels; what data those pixels contain is the issue, 
and its usually some mixture of noise and grain. If you are in love with film 
grain, and unhappy with digital grain or digital emulations of film grain, 
that would be a reason for shooting film as well. But if its image info, not 
film texture, that you are after, get a top end digital SLR, or a medium format 
film camera... or both.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

> From: Art
>
> I am getting ready to purchase a Minolta Konica scanner over
> purchasing a new digital camera because everything I have read about
> scanning a 35mm black and white negative has indicated that scanning
> has the megapixal equivalent of around 20mgpixals or above campared to
> the cameras that are out there now.
>
> does anyone have any comments?

That's probably true, if your art depends upon maximum sharpness and loads
of detail. In my opinion, though, to reach that high resolution and get
useful data out of it (instead of merely a more accurate representation of
the blur and grain), you'll need to shoot low ISO, stick to primes, focus
carefully, and use a tripod with mirror lockup for everything.

On the other hand, there is another digital approach, which works on
landscapes and other things that sit still, and that's to shoot lots of
smaller pictures and stitch them together. That way, you retain the
advantages of the quick turnaround, yet can still get gargantuan images with
loads of detail. Modern stitching software, like PTGui, has gotten really
good, and with some practice you can get really quick at it. Shooting a 4x4
array can realistically give you at least the equivalent of a 2x2 sized
sensor, maybe even 3x3, after you factor out the overlap, and the
interpolation filtering. So even a cheap eight megapixel camera like a Rebel
XT should give you more than enough resolution.

--

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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Adam Maas 
<mykroft@...> wrote:
>
> PanF and similar can outperform affordable Digital. But if you shoot 
> high-ISO digital will provide cleaner images (especially at 3200).
> 
> Note that the Scan Dual III and IV only produce around 10MP scans, 
you 
> aren't getting 20+MP of info from them. The 5400 will do better.
> 


Is KM going to continue making scanners, or did those go the way of 
their cameras?

One of the very interesting developments in digital raw workflow
centers around the ability to shoot 3 bracketed frames - over, under,
and in the middle, drop them into PS CS2 with instant registration and
combine them instantly as one very smooth entity. It's a  major
improvement in dynamic range over the one frame 35mm camera or any ccd
scanner, certainly including Imacon. That three frame registration can
happen in about the time it would take to power up your scanner much
less have your film processed. However we aren't talking people photo
though, its got to be static right now.

john



> smaller pictures and stitch them together. That way, you retain the
> advantages of the quick turnaround, yet can still get gargantuan
images with
> loads of detail. Modern stitching software, like PTGui, has gotten
really
> good, and with some practice you can get really quick at it.
Shooting a 4x4
> array can realistically give you at least the equivalent of a 2x2 sized
> sensor, maybe even 3x3, after you factor out the overlap, and the
> interpolation filtering. So even a cheap eight megapixel camera like
a Rebel

> XT should give you more than enough resolution.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
>

john dean wrote:

> One of the very interesting developments in digital raw workflow
> centers around the ability to shoot 3 bracketed frames - over, under,
> and in the middle, drop them into PS CS2 with instant registration and
> combine them instantly as one very smooth entity. It's a  major
> improvement in dynamic range over the one frame 35mm camera

Perhaps over chromes. Not over negatives. One can easily capture the 
entire subject brightness range from featureless shadows to highlight 
detail on a white flower in bright mid-day summer sun with either color 
or B&W negative film. Here's an example:

http://www.achromaticarts.com/big_image.php?path=flowers&img_num=2

With the breeze blowing, there's no method I know of that will let you 
capture this image with any digital imaging device commercially available.

Which proves what exactly? Nothing other than you can do some things 
with film that you can't do with digital. There are undoubtedly many 
things you can do with digital that you can't do with film. The two 
technologies are intersecting sets - neither is wholly contained within 
the other.

So back to the OPs problem - one should use the technology with which 
one is most comfortable. If that's film, so be it. If that's digital, so 
be it.
--
Bruce Watson

I just got the 5400 II this week and have been fooling around with it.  
400 speed B&W is pretty grainy. I suppose there are those with special 
film/developer combos and super careful processing, but that's just too 
much work for me.

The 5400 II has been working great on some old family C-41 stuff - the 
ICE and ROC are real time savers.  These ICE4 features do not work 
on "real" B&W film.  My negs are stored in sleeves in enclosed binders 
and even so the dust is a problem.

If I was really going to make a go of it, I would change to medium 
format and buy the Nikon super coolscan 9000 ED or LF and one of the 
new Epson flatbeds that will be coming out soon.  By that time, your in 
for some big money...you could buy a darkroom for much less :)

I'm not going to get into an arguement about it because 35mm doesn't
interest me in the least when it come to film in the first place.... 

But, what I was refering to was not how much FILM stock could record,
that is beside the point. If you are a digital printer, you are going
to have to SCAN that great film and that is when you get into trouble.
A ccd film scanner isn't going to do the job any better than a 5D
camera using CS2 for dynamic range and noise control. That was the
only point I was trying to make. 

If I was going to try to capture the most of film it would be drum
scanned of course. Now that is better. A ccd scanner is nothing but a
mid level digital camera, and usually not a very efficient one at
that. His decision was between a digital 35mm slr and a ccd film scanner.

John




 
> Perhaps over chromes. Not over negatives. One can easily capture the 
> entire subject brightness range from featureless shadows to highlight 
> detail on a white flower in bright mid-day summer sun with either color 
> or B&W negative film. Here's an example:
> 
> http://www.achromaticarts.com/big_image.php?path=flowers&img_num=2
> 
> With the breeze blowing, there's no method I know of that will let you 
> capture this image with any digital imaging device commercially
available.
> 
> Which proves what exactly? Nothing other than you can do some things 
> with film that you can't do with digital. There are undoubtedly many 
> things you can do with digital that you can't do with film. The two 
> technologies are intersecting sets - neither is wholly contained within 
> the other.
> 
> So back to the OPs problem - one should use the technology with which 
> one is most comfortable. If that's film, so be it. If that's
digital, so 

> be it.
> --
> Bruce Watson
>

Well, apart from the ability of colour negative film to capture
between 13 and 15 stops in a single frame scanned once, there is no
reason not to do the same with film on the occasions whan 13 to 15
stops is not enough. I admit that registration of two neg scans is not
as easy as it is for two digital frames, but it isn't difficult.

Best,
Helen

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:

>
> One of the very interesting developments in digital raw workflow
> centers around the ability to shoot 3 bracketed frames - over, under,
> and in the middle, drop them into PS CS2 with instant registration and
> combine them instantly as one very smooth entity. It's a  major
> improvement in dynamic range over the one frame 35mm camera or any ccd
> scanner, certainly including Imacon. That three frame registration can
> happen in about the time it would take to power up your scanner much
> less have your film processed. However we aren't talking people photo
> though, its got to be static right now.
> 
> john

Greg wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Adam Maas
> <mykroft@...> wrote:
> >
> > PanF and similar can outperform affordable Digital. But if you shoot
> > high-ISO digital will provide cleaner images (especially at 3200).
> >
> > Note that the Scan Dual III and IV only produce around 10MP scans,
> you
> > aren't getting 20+MP of info from them. The 5400 will do better.
> >
>
>
> Is KM going to continue making scanners, or did those go the way of
> their cameras?
>
>
They're dead. Warranty service will continue until all are out of 
warranty (next year sometime) but that's it. KM is shutting down their 
entire photo business, although the film/chemical portion will not cease 
operation for 1 year.

-Adam

I look for Nikon to do the same in regard to their scanner division
within a year. Otherwise the Canon will finish them off too.

John





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Adam Maas
<mykroft@...> wrote:
>
> Greg wrote:
> 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Adam Maas
> > <mykroft@> wrote:
> > >
> > > PanF and similar can outperform affordable Digital. But if you shoot
> > > high-ISO digital will provide cleaner images (especially at 3200).
> > >
> > > Note that the Scan Dual III and IV only produce around 10MP scans,
> > you
> > > aren't getting 20+MP of info from them. The 5400 will do better.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Is KM going to continue making scanners, or did those go the way of
> > their cameras?
> >
> >
> They're dead. Warranty service will continue until all are out of 
> warranty (next year sometime) but that's it. KM is shutting down their 
> entire photo business, although the film/chemical portion will not
cease 

> operation for 1 year.
> 
> -Adam
>

In my eyes, the bottom line is film looks different than digital. PERIOD
Think of it this way..can you imagine a photo by Robert Frank, Josef
Koudelka, Cartier Bresson, William Klein....without a grainy grittiness???
Can you imagine a photo by Weston, Strand, Stieglitz, Adams or any other
large format shooters..WITH grain and grittiness??
Different looks come with different materials ..film / cameras / digital /
gelatin silver /platinum /inkjet .....on and on.
Just pick the combination that gives you either the look / feel you like, or
the look you can live with.
It's not about pixels, it's about pictures.
Just another photographers 2 cents.  About all any of this is worth!
David Aschkenas
-- 
David Aschkenas
915 N. Euclid Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
412-363-3458

www.daschkenasphoto.com

It's worth something. Not a single one of the photographers you
mentioned, if they were in the prime of their career would NOT be
shooting digital capture, especially Ansel Adams. He told us himself 
decades ago before he died that he wished it was available to him
then. It wasn't. 








--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Aschkenas
<Daschkenas@...> wrote:
>
> In my eyes, the bottom line is film looks different than digital. PERIOD
> Think of it this way..can you imagine a photo by Robert Frank, Josef
> Koudelka, Cartier Bresson, William Klein....without a grainy
grittiness???
> Can you imagine a photo by Weston, Strand, Stieglitz, Adams or any other
> large format shooters..WITH grain and grittiness??
> Different looks come with different materials ..film / cameras /
digital /
> gelatin silver /platinum /inkjet .....on and on.
> Just pick the combination that gives you either the look / feel you
like, or

> the look you can live with.
> It's not about pixels, it's about pictures.
> Just another photographers 2 cents.  About all any of this is worth!
> David Aschkenas
> -- 
> David Aschkenas
> 915 N. Euclid Ave.
> Pittsburgh, PA 15206
> 412-363-3458
> 
> www.daschkenasphoto.com
>

Perhaps you misunderstood what I¹m saying.  I¹m not saying SHOOT FILM and
I¹m not saying SHOOT DIGITAL, all I¹m saying is that they are different
animals, choose whichever one you like best or are most comfortable with.
Just make pictures rather than only think about  ³is this method smoother?
Is this method grainier? Is this method whatever...Just do it.
David

-- 
David Aschkenas
915 N. Euclid Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
412-363-3458

www.daschkenasphoto.com



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

"However for new images you will probably get better quality from a
camera such as the Nikon D200 or Canon 5D rather than film under almost
all circumstances"

At what print size do you think this is true? I have a 5D and some Canon L 
lenses due to arrive next week (finally gave up on Nikon) and I'm pretty 
excited but I'm not expecting to make prints comparable to those made from 
my 4x5 and 8x10 film scans at any size beyond 11x14  (I'll actually be happy 
if the 5D is just as good, forget about better, even at just 11x14). The 
(admittedly few) prints larger than 11x14 that I've seen from the much more 
expensive Canon Mark II Whateveritscalled were o.k. but certainly not the 
equal of comparably sized prints I've made and seen others make from a 4x5 
scan. The only large (over 11x14) prints I've seen from a digital source 
that can compare with those made from 4x5 scans were done with a digital 
back on a Mamiya body but that outfit cost $30,000. My 4x5 outfit cost about 
$4000 and if I wanted to scrimp it could have cost a whole lot less.

There are, of course, many benefits that can be obtained from a high quality 
digital camera that can't be obtained from 4x5 - mobility, instant feedback, 
ease of use, speed, etc. - but so far better print quality isn't one of them 
in my experience .

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

From: "Peter Marshall" <petermarshall@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera


>I think the Epson V750 Pro (due in May) is going to make dedicated film
> scanners such as the Minolta ones obsolete, giving more or less the same
> quality as more expensive drum or virtual drum scanners, but with
> greatly improved ease and speed of use.
>
> However for new images you will probably get better quality from a
> camera such as the Nikon D200 or Canon 5D rather than film under almost
> all circumstances. And with cheaper models such as the D50 or D70 under
> most.
>
> Regards
>
> Peter Marshall
> petermarshall@...
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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......
>
>
>
> Greg wrote:
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Adam Maas
>> <mykroft@...> wrote:
>>
>>> PanF and similar can outperform affordable Digital. But if you shoot
>>> high-ISO digital will provide cleaner images (especially at 3200).
>>>
>>> Note that the Scan Dual III and IV only produce around 10MP scans,
>>>
>> you
>>
>>> aren't getting 20+MP of info from them. The 5400 will do better.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is KM going to continue making scanners, or did those go the way of
>> their cameras?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

John,
Could you elaborate on your technique for "droping" your bracketed 
exposures in to PS-CS2 with instant registration and combine them 
into one image. Is that done before or after the raw conversion?
Thanks
kevin monroe

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> One of the very interesting developments in digital raw workflow
> centers around the ability to shoot 3 bracketed frames - over, 
under,
> and in the middle, drop them into PS CS2 with instant registration 
and
> combine them instantly as one very smooth entity. It's a  major
> improvement in dynamic range over the one frame 35mm camera or any 
ccd
> scanner, certainly including Imacon. That three frame registration 
can
> happen in about the time it would take to power up your scanner much
> less have your film processed. However we aren't talking people 
photo
> though, its got to be static right now.
> 
> john
> 
> 
> 
> > smaller pictures and stitch them together. That way, you retain 
the
> > advantages of the quick turnaround, yet can still get gargantuan
> images with
> > loads of detail. Modern stitching software, like PTGui, has gotten
> really
> > good, and with some practice you can get really quick at it.
> Shooting a 4x4
> > array can realistically give you at least the equivalent of a 2x2 
sized
> > sensor, maybe even 3x3, after you factor out the overlap, and the
> > interpolation filtering. So even a cheap eight megapixel camera 
like

> a Rebel
> > XT should give you more than enough resolution.
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> > Paul                mailto:pderocco@
> >
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> It's worth something. Not a single one of the photographers you
> mentioned, if they were in the prime of their career would NOT be
> shooting digital capture, especially Ansel Adams. He told us himself 
> decades ago before he died that he wished it was available to him
> then. It wasn't. 
> 
> 
> 

retrophotographic.com  freestyle.com www.jandcphoto.com  ...sell all
sorts of B&W film, paper, chemistry...as do Calumet, B&W, Adorama. 

I don't think "a single one of the photographers" that were mentioned
would have taken part in this discussion. They were photographers,
they made images, they found the images of others interesting. 

Wanting decorative images, one may not want grain. It's "unpopular."
Ansel was a POPULAR photographer, unlike Weston, who was driven more
passionately (read both Ansel and Weston to understand). Popularity
has implications, brings baggage, doesn't necessarily relate to deeper
significance of the image. 

Someone will continue to make scanners, presumably Epson. Of course
Nikon won't make the successor to V/5000/9000 forever. So what? There
are tremendous collections of fine negatives that will have eternal
merit...how many digital files with eternal merit are there, so far? 

Importantly, film photographers can simply revert to darkrooms. Many
of us have them in storage...good darkrooms are dirt cheap these days,
and there's no shortage of papers & chemistry: 

retrophotographic.com  freestyle.com www.jandcphoto.com  ...sell all
sorts of B&W film, paper, chemistry...as do Calumet, B&W, Adorama.

Kevin

You can do it either way. However, when you MERGE TO HDR (high dynamic
range- 32 bit) the raw file must be completely raw and unprocessed 16
bit data without adjustments. The other thing to remember is that
these exposures must not be more than 1 stop apart in exposure
otherwise you will begin to experience banding artifacts.

I leaned this procedure from Martin Evenings really good book
Photoshop CS2 for Photographers. Later I read more about it in Bruce
Frasier's outstanding Real World Camera Raw CS2, which I think
everyone who owns a digital camera should have. It's cheap and
extremely well written like all his books. It really helps you
understand the really useful capabilites of camera raw and do the
least damage to your files.

If you just want a straight forward description of what Photoshop's
HDR capability is all about here is a link that describes it.

http://www.adobeevangelists.com/photoshop/index.html 

If you search Photoshop's own data base through the program, typing in
HDR you will find essentially this same info.

I think this HDR stuff is the most under rated aspect of CS2 along
with the new smarter noise reduction capability and spot healing
brush. If you are shooting digital capture and are not working in CS2
you are missing a lot in my opinion. Of course it's expensive and we
can't share it any longer with our loved ones ;-( . 

John








--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "digikdm"
<monroekd@...> wrote:

>
> John,
> Could you elaborate on your technique for "droping" your bracketed 
> exposures in to PS-CS2 with instant registration and combine them 
> into one image. Is that done before or after the raw conversion?
> Thanks
> kevin monroe
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
> <deanwork2003@> wrote:
> >
> > One of the very interesting developments in digital raw workflow
> > centers around the ability to shoot 3 bracketed frames - over, 
> under,
> > and in the middle, drop them into PS CS2 with instant registration 
> and
> > combine them instantly as one very smooth entity. It's a  major
> > improvement in dynamic range over the one frame 35mm camera or any 
> ccd
> > scanner, certainly including Imacon. That three frame registration 
> can
> > happen in about the time it would take to power up your scanner much
> > less have your film processed. However we aren't talking people 
> photo
> > though, its got to be static right now.
> > 
> > john
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > smaller pictures and stitch them together. That way, you retain 
> the
> > > advantages of the quick turnaround, yet can still get gargantuan
> > images with
> > > loads of detail. Modern stitching software, like PTGui, has gotten
> > really
> > > good, and with some practice you can get really quick at it.
> > Shooting a 4x4
> > > array can realistically give you at least the equivalent of a 2x2 
> sized
> > > sensor, maybe even 3x3, after you factor out the overlap, and the
> > > interpolation filtering. So even a cheap eight megapixel camera 
> like
> > a Rebel
> > > XT should give you more than enough resolution.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 
> > > Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> > > Paul                mailto:pderocco@
> > >
> >
>

you'd better start imagining it.  



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Aschkenas 
<Daschkenas@...> wrote:
>
> In my eyes, the bottom line is film looks different than digital. 
PERIOD
> Think of it this way..can you imagine a photo by Robert Frank, Josef
> Koudelka, Cartier Bresson, William Klein....without a grainy 
grittiness???
> Can you imagine a photo by Weston, Strand, Stieglitz, Adams or any 
other
> large format shooters..WITH grain and grittiness??
> Different looks come with different materials ..film / cameras / 
digital /
> gelatin silver /platinum /inkjet .....on and on.
> Just pick the combination that gives you either the look / feel you 
like, or

> the look you can live with.
> It's not about pixels, it's about pictures.
> Just another photographers 2 cents.  About all any of this is worth!
> David Aschkenas
> -- 
> David Aschkenas
> 915 N. Euclid Ave.
> Pittsburgh, PA 15206
> 412-363-3458
> 
> www.daschkenasphoto.com
>

Thanks a lot John!



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> Kevin
> 
> You can do it either way. However, when you MERGE TO HDR (high 
dynamic
> range- 32 bit) the raw file must be completely raw and unprocessed 
16
> bit data without adjustments. The other thing to remember is that
> these exposures must not be more than 1 stop apart in exposure
> otherwise you will begin to experience banding artifacts.
> 
> I leaned this procedure from Martin Evenings really good book
> Photoshop CS2 for Photographers. Later I read more about it in Bruce
> Frasier's outstanding Real World Camera Raw CS2, which I think
> everyone who owns a digital camera should have. It's cheap and
> extremely well written like all his books. It really helps you
> understand the really useful capabilites of camera raw and do the
> least damage to your files.
> 
> If you just want a straight forward description of what Photoshop's
> HDR capability is all about here is a link that describes it.
> 
> http://www.adobeevangelists.com/photoshop/index.html 
> 
> If you search Photoshop's own data base through the program, typing 
in
> HDR you will find essentially this same info.
> 
> I think this HDR stuff is the most under rated aspect of CS2 along
> with the new smarter noise reduction capability and spot healing
> brush. If you are shooting digital capture and are not working in 
CS2
> you are missing a lot in my opinion. Of course it's expensive and we
> can't share it any longer with our loved ones ;-( . 
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "digikdm"
> <monroekd@> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> > Could you elaborate on your technique for "droping" your 
bracketed 
> > exposures in to PS-CS2 with instant registration and combine them 
> > into one image. Is that done before or after the raw conversion?
> > Thanks
> > kevin monroe
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
> > <deanwork2003@> wrote:
> > >
> > > One of the very interesting developments in digital raw workflow
> > > centers around the ability to shoot 3 bracketed frames - over, 
> > under,
> > > and in the middle, drop them into PS CS2 with instant 
registration 
> > and
> > > combine them instantly as one very smooth entity. It's a  major
> > > improvement in dynamic range over the one frame 35mm camera or 
any 
> > ccd
> > > scanner, certainly including Imacon. That three frame 
registration 
> > can
> > > happen in about the time it would take to power up your scanner 
much
> > > less have your film processed. However we aren't talking people 
> > photo
> > > though, its got to be static right now.
> > > 
> > > john
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > smaller pictures and stitch them together. That way, you 
retain 
> > the
> > > > advantages of the quick turnaround, yet can still get 
gargantuan
> > > images with
> > > > loads of detail. Modern stitching software, like PTGui, has 
gotten
> > > really
> > > > good, and with some practice you can get really quick at it.
> > > Shooting a 4x4
> > > > array can realistically give you at least the equivalent of a 
2x2 
> > sized
> > > > sensor, maybe even 3x3, after you factor out the overlap, and 
the
> > > > interpolation filtering. So even a cheap eight megapixel 
camera 

> > like
> > > a Rebel
> > > > XT should give you more than enough resolution.
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > 
> > > > Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> > > > Paul                mailto:pderocco@
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Look I'm not knocking film, I shoot it for my work becasue I happen to
have a drum scanner and can't afford a $30,000.00 back. I'm just
facing reality and this is a digital imaging site, not a "darkroom"
usergroup, if such a thing exists anymore.

No, those great photographers (and you know absolutley nothing about
Adams early work and the contributions he made if you think of him
only as a popular photographer) would be talking about this issue
heatedly, everyday, you bet ya. In their time the issue was whether to
shoot large format or 35mm and tri-x. I'm old enough to remember how
they wrote whole essays on such topics as that. The use of digital
capture is not about "smoothness" or grain. It has to do with a
completely different way of thinking.

john  


I don't think "a single one of the photographers" that were mentioned
would have taken part in this discussion. They were photographers,
they made images, they found the images of others interesting.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> 
wrote:
> I think this HDR stuff is the most under rated aspect of CS2 along
> with the new smarter noise reduction capability and spot healing
> brush. If you are shooting digital capture and are not working in CS2
> you are missing a lot in my opinion. Of course it's expensive and we
> can't share it any longer with our loved ones ;-( . 


Here is a link to a video tutorial on Merge to HDR.  It is a section of a tutorial CD that 
shipped with PSCS2.  There are also slightly different options for Merge to HDR depending 
on whether you enter through Bridge or PS.  I'm also very impressed with the potential for 
Merge to HDR.  One thing it can do is overcome very bad lighting and enable you to get a 
decent to excellent image out of a bad to mediocre situation.  I once did a test when first 
playing with HDR by shooting, in mid-day, through a north facing window placed in a 
white interior wall.  The window I was shooting into was the only source of light in the 
room.  I was able to get an image that showed the detail of a screen behind a pane of 
glass in the window, foilage outside the window and texture detail on the white interior 
wall framing that window.  The light on the interior wall could only have been light that 
came through the window I was shooting into and reflected around the room and back 
onto that wall:

http://studio.adobe.com/us/search/content.jsp?lang=en&item=phscs2ttL03

Coupling the HDR capability with inkjet capabilities for detail is pretty exciting.  I did 
similar excercises in a wet darkroom many years ago involving lots of multiple prints and 
lots of hand cutting of custom masks and dodging and burning tools.  It was very tedious 
and really only illuminating the first few times you did it, then it became drudgey.   HDRs 
ability to soft proof the image before going to the first sheet of paper, I think, opens up a 
whole new world.

I know, me too 20 years ago. Frederick Sommer had this technique where
he cut out a density relief map in acetate sheets and contacted that
to his 8x10 contact printing frame in layers of opacity. And, remember
highlight masking with Cibachrome? Talking about the dark ages, and it
seems like yesterday...

There were some guys here in town who were doing still life work
combining multiple shot files out of a Foveon digital camera about 4
or 5 years ago. They went through a process that registerd the files,
then assigned layer groups to each one to carve out masks of important
data and really extended the subtlety of the range. Now Adobe is
letting us do it the easy way. This is going to get very interesting
and go way beyond film very soon in terms of dynamic range capability,
at least if you are a still life, landscape, or architectural shooter.
But I wouldn't put it past Canon to find a way to do instant multiple
exposures for outdoor people shots too. 

John

 

--------------
 I did
similar excercises in a wet darkroom many years ago involving lots of
multiple
prints and
lots of hand cutting of custom masks and dodging and burning tools. 
It was very
tedious
and really only illuminating the first few times you did it, then it
became
drudgey.   HDRs
ability to soft proof the image before going to the first sheet of
paper, I
think, opens up a
whole new world.

I think the Epson V750 Pro (due in May) is going to make dedicated film 
scanners such as the Minolta ones obsolete, giving more or less the same 
quality as more expensive drum or virtual drum scanners, but with 
greatly improved ease and speed of use.

However for new images you will probably get better quality from a 
camera such as the Nikon D200 or Canon 5D rather than film under almost 
all circumstances. And with cheaper models such as the D50 or D70 under 
most.

Regards

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...    
_________________________________________________________________
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......



Greg wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Adam Maas 
> <mykroft@...> wrote:
>   
>> PanF and similar can outperform affordable Digital. But if you shoot 
>> high-ISO digital will provide cleaner images (especially at 3200).
>>
>> Note that the Scan Dual III and IV only produce around 10MP scans, 
>>     
> you 
>   
>> aren't getting 20+MP of info from them. The 5400 will do better.
>>
>>     
>
>
> Is KM going to continue making scanners, or did those go the way of 
> their cameras?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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,
A $799 scanner that will beat or match scanners costing many  
thousands of dollars? Not buying Epson's hype, are you?
Mark

On Mar 24, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Peter Marshall wrote:

> giving more or less the same
> quality as more expensive drum or virtual drum scanners,



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

Mark,

I've not seen Epson's hype. I have looked at the only detailed hands-on 
review of the V700 that I'm aware of, by Vincent Oliver, which he 
finished a day or so ago. There are a few minor issues, one of which 
should be resolved by the V750 which will cut out some minor light 
scatter. The results he shows are pretty good, and his conclusion isn't 
a great deal different from mine.

(Note that I did say "more or less the same quality", not that they 
would beat the best, though it will not surprise me if they equal or 
beat some that cost a considerable amount more - it shouldn't surprise 
anyone given how technology improves. The camera I'm using at the moment 
trounces those that cost 20 times a much a few years back after all.)

But doubtless your remarks are based on extensive field testing :-)

Regards,

Peter

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...    
_________________________________________________________________
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......



Mark Savoia wrote:

> Peter,
> A $799 scanner that will beat or match scanners costing many  
> thousands of dollars? Not buying Epson's hype, are you?
> Mark
>
> On Mar 24, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Peter Marshall wrote:
>
>   
>> giving more or less the same
>> quality as more expensive drum or virtual drum scanners,
>>     
>
>
>
> [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
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>

Mark is right. "More or less"? More or less Imacon, possibly, more or
less PMT, not.What in the world is that about. I pray that you will
make us eat our words but that isn't likely.

Epson sent out a workshop teacher instructor to APA,(I won't mention
his name because I am more polite than that) about four years ago.
People paid over $100.00 to do that seminar. One of the first things
he said was - if you put together a magnetic film holder avalable from
parts at Home Depot on this regular Epson flatbed it will give you
"just as good of quality as any drum scanner". A bunch of us looked at
each other and busted out laughing, then the whole auditorium groaned,
we had just paid $100.00 and we knew it was downhill from there. 

Forgive us if we are skeptical of claims like that. This is about the
4th version of it that I personally have head about. I just saw one of
those scans today from a scanner that was sold to my ad photo client
with similar hyperbole. You have really good photo studios that go out
and buy these things and think they can do high end work with them.
Then they end up really pissed and having to farm it out everytime.
Now they are simply going to the 5D.

Like I said. I pray this time they are telling the truth, but we're
not going to throw away our PMT scanners anytime soon and their track
record is not good.

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall
<petermarshall@...> wrote:
>
> Mark,
> 
> I've not seen Epson's hype. I have looked at the only detailed hands-on 
> review of the V700 that I'm aware of, by Vincent Oliver, which he 
> finished a day or so ago. There are a few minor issues, one of which 
> should be resolved by the V750 which will cut out some minor light 
> scatter. The results he shows are pretty good, and his conclusion isn't 
> a great deal different from mine.
> 
> (Note that I did say "more or less the same quality", not that they 
> would beat the best, though it will not surprise me if they equal or 
> beat some that cost a considerable amount more - it shouldn't surprise 
> anyone given how technology improves. The camera I'm using at the
moment 
> trounces those that cost 20 times a much a few years back after all.)
> 
> But doubtless your remarks are based on extensive field testing :-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter
> 
> Peter Marshall
> petermarshall@...    
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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......
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Savoia wrote:
> > Peter,
> > A $799 scanner that will beat or match scanners costing many  
> > thousands of dollars? Not buying Epson's hype, are you?
> > Mark
> >
> > On Mar 24, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Peter Marshall wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> giving more or less the same
> >> quality as more expensive drum or virtual drum scanners,
> >>     
> >
> >
> >
> > [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
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Like I said. I pray this time they are telling the truth, but we're
> not going to throw away our PMT scanners anytime soon and their 
track
> record is not good.
> 

Wouldn't it be nice if this were (finally) true? However, I'm not to 
terribly impressed with the 6400 ppi scans that Vincent did. The 4800 
ppi scans looked pretty good after he found the height adjusters, so 
maybe with the wet mount adapter we can get good 4800 ppi scans. That 
said I don't hold too much hope for the claimed 6400 ppi resolution. 
But I guess we will find out when someone gets one (hopefully 
Vincent) as the reviews at photo-i are fairly level, and at least 
provide enough data and images to make up my own mind, not the always 
crumby all glowing and shiny lights type reviews that are so common.

Better start imagining what?  They are dead for crying out loud.  
You know I would expect that someone who uses "digi" in their screen 
name would be very one tracked and one sided, but come on....  Yes 
maybe Adams, Weston, or Bresson would shoot digital if alive today.  
Maybe they would find girlfriends online and leave their wives for 
them.  Maybe they would quite photography and start a yachting 
club.  Maybe, maybe, maybe.  Here is something you need to know 
about Adams.  He did keep up with the current technology.  He shot 
lots of color work that not many people know about.  But think about 
this.....What is Adams known for?  What works of his are the most 
famous?  Is it his color work when color was the hotest thing?  NO!  
It was that b&w film work.  Still is to this day.  Same goes for all 
the photographers mentioned.  So enjoy your digital, but until there 
are greats works of art created with digital, you have no leg to 
stand on.  Atleast when it comes to the fine art market.  A market 
Adams and Weston took part in. A market where if you check the 
galleries in major metropolitan areas, you will find that a 
disproportionate amount of b&w work is traditional (like 95%).  
Why?  Because they are fine artist who follow their creative spirit, 
not Popular Photography's digital camera reviews.  Also, b&w fine 
art the traditional way is and always will be gorgeous! This is not 
to take anything away from digital and those that strive to make 
digital b&w fine art prints.  But, please.  All the great 
photographers you mentioned are remembered for gorgeous b&w 
traditional prints.  A little respect for that craft please.  I have 
never heard anyone turn to digital because they thought it was more 
beautiful than a well printed 4x5 b&w print.  No, they turn to 
digital because the recurring costs are cheap and they can take as 
many pictures as they like.  Not exactly a move made for 
your "artistic vision" is it?

"digikdm" <monroekd@...> wrote:
>
> you'd better start imagining it.  
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David 
Aschkenas 
> <Daschkenas@> wrote:
> 
> > Think of it this way..can you imagine a photo by Robert Frank, 
Josef
> > Koudelka, Cartier Bresson, William Klein....without a grainy 
> grittiness???
> > Can you imagine a photo by Weston, Strand, Stieglitz, Adams or 
any 

> other
> > large format shooters..WITH grain and grittiness??
> >
>

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.


I have.


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


  A little respect for that craft please.  I have 

> never heard anyone turn to digital because they thought it was more 
> beautiful than a well printed 4x5 b&w print.  No, they turn to 
> digital because the recurring costs are cheap and they can take as 
> many pictures as they like.  Not exactly a move made for 
> your "artistic vision" is it?

IMHO a digital SLR and a few lenses buys a lot of artistic freedom.  My own
experience, which certainly will not be to everyone's liking:  When I
started the hobby, I used 4x5 and 8x10 field cameras, a spotmeter, film
speeds calibrated with the zone system and, of course, tripods.  Cool stuff.
Then I discovered 35mm cameras (MF never made that much sense to me).
Portability and no tripod, especially with rangefinder gear, but still
drudgery in film developing.  Then came digital cameras.  No tripod, shoot
all you want with a microdrive, you'll probably get what you want, and "film
speeds" selected as you go.  Result, more time spent in photographing, more
latitude in photographing, more time to edit and no time spent developing
film or scanning (which can be considerable).  Of course, I still pack a
good tripod, but it is smaller and usually used just in really low-light
static situations.  In keeping with this forum, Convert to B&W Pro gives me
an excellent b&w image from the digital file.  I wouldn't worry about the
"megapixel" comparison.  My 35mm RGB scans are about 100mb, compared to
around 40mb for a digital file, but a lot of that is just noise.   Just my
take.

Ken 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Art
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:44 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
> 
> I am getting ready to purchase a Minolta Konica scanner over 
> purchasing a new digital camera because everything I have 
> read about scanning a 35mm black and white negative has 
> indicated that scanning has the megapixal equivalent of 
> around 20mgpixals or above campared to the cameras that are 
> out there now.
> 
> does anyone have any comments?
> 
> 
> Art

Row, row, row your boat
gently down the stream...
merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
getting as good result with digital as you get with film is but a 
dream.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> The line it is drawn
> The curse it is cast
> The slow one now
> Will later be fast
> As the present now
> Will later be past
> The order is
> Rapidly fadin'.
> And the first one now
> Will later be last
> For the times they are a-changin'.
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> 
> 
>   A little respect for that craft please.  I have 
> > never heard anyone turn to digital because they thought it was 
more 
> > beautiful than a well printed 4x5 b&w print.  No, they turn to 
> > digital because the recurring costs are cheap and they can take 
as 

> > many pictures as they like.  Not exactly a move made for 
> > your "artistic vision" is it?
>

Man I hear this all the time.Mostly at DPreview dot comm.Is digital
capture really now a match for 8x10 BW film in fine art?I live on the
Calif. coast and frequent quite a few galleries.I have yet to see a
digital captured BW image that drops my jaw like Brett's stuff shot
with his old Calumet C-1, or Ansels large 8x10 stuff.I'm not totally
convinced these guys would be capturing with digital.

>
> It's worth something. Not a single one of the photographers you
> mentioned, if they were in the prime of their career would NOT be
> shooting digital capture, especially Ansel Adams. He told us himself 
> decades ago before he died that he wished it was available to him
> then. It wasn't.

Hello Art,

My main D-SLR is a 6 MP Nikon D70 but for images that require more
details and substantial enlargement I have to resort to my old trusty
Canon A-1. I think a 12 MP digicam gets you quite a bit closer but
never having own one I can't tell for sure. My guess is it's probably
indistinguishable from my 22 MP scan except it doesn't have any grain.
The 22 MP scan is grainy but ... I just happen to love it a lot.

So the D70 saves me lots of time so I can have spare time for my hobby.

--nick  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Art"
<aromanocpa@...> wrote:

>
> I am getting ready to purchase a Minolta Konica scanner over 
> purchasing a new digital camera because everything I have read about 
> scanning a 35mm black and white negative has indicated that scanning 
> has the megapixal equivalent of around 20mgpixals or above campared to 
> the cameras that are out there now.
> 
> does anyone have any comments?
> 
> 
> Art
>

Greg wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
> <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>>
>> Like I said. I pray this time they are telling the truth, but we're
>> not going to throw away our PMT scanners anytime soon and their 
> track
>> record is not good.
>>
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if this were (finally) true? However, I'm not to 
> terribly impressed with the 6400 ppi scans that Vincent did. The 4800 
> ppi scans looked pretty good after he found the height adjusters, so 
> maybe with the wet mount adapter we can get good 4800 ppi scans. That 
> said I don't hold too much hope for the claimed 6400 ppi resolution. 
> But I guess we will find out when someone gets one (hopefully 
> Vincent) as the reviews at photo-i are fairly level, and at least 
> provide enough data and images to make up my own mind, not the always 
> crumby all glowing and shiny lights type reviews that are so common.

Up to half the review Vincent was on the wrong path in my 
opinion. Either he started to understand our comments that the 
height adjustment was important or Epson told him to address 
that in the days that followed. After that there wasn't much 
time left for further testing. The V750-M test with wet mount 
carriers should say much more if Vincent really tries. It is 
true that he isn't just voicing Epson press bulletins. I 
prefer the German tests though but I hope they make an effort 
of finding the right focus, otherwise the resolution test 
doesn't tell enough.

There's no 6400 PPI or 4800 PPI true resolution in that 
scanner. But something between 3000 and 4000 PPI might be 
possible. the Nikon 8000/9000 doesn't make more than 3600 PPI 
true resolution so that isn't bad.

Ernst

-- 

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Better start learning to make film then....

> From: joshscapes <joshrandall@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:01:41 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
> 
> Row, row, row your boat
> gently down the stream...
> merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
> getting as good result with digital as you get with film is but a
> dream.
>

"I think you are taking my reply out of context."

HI Peter - Sorry, I didn't intend to be argumentative, I really was just 
wondering whether you throught digital would produce superior prints from 
all film sizes at all print sizes or whether there was a point at which some 
films would do better. I missed portions of the thread and didn't realize 
that everything you said was in the context of only 35mm film.

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

From: "Peter Marshall" <petermarshall@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera


> Brian,
>
> I think you are taking my reply out of context. I think it was to
> someone who was considering 35mm film, not large format, and I think it
> is true for most prints from 35mm film. From film - mainly ISO400 for
> the kind of photojournalistic work I mainly do - I was getting good
> prints either direct or from scans up to around 12x8" or slightly
> larger, but above that I could see a loss in quality. Of course I did
> sometimes make larger prints - 24x20" and even on occasion A1 and
> larger, but the grain and loss of sharpness are apparent, though a slow
> film like Tech Pan (sadly no longer) did pretty well. Some of them are
> pretty good prints, either because or in spite of the grain.1
>
> With digital, working from 6Mp, my basic print size without seeing any
> real quality loss went up from 13x9 to 15x10 inches. You have much lower
> noise with digital, but you don't get any more detail. With the D200 I
> hope to push it a little further - really to anything I can print on
> A3+, which is the largest my ink jet printer takes..
>
> When I've worked with 4x5 (or even 6x7 - or 8x10 come to that), then
> I've printed at 20x16 or 24x20, and larger sizes would be possible. In
> fact the only 4x5 work I've had a part in over recent years has been
> scans for repro on A4 covers. I've done these with good results on a
> 1200 dpi flatbed, and I don't think the printed results would have been
> any better at a higher res.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Marshall
> petermarshall@...
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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......

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

At 6:39 AM -0500 3/24/06, Brian Ellis wrote: " ... I have a 5D and 
some Canon L lenses due to arrive next week ... ."

In the meantime, Brian, I'm curious to know which lenses you've 
ordered to try with what sort of shooting. Thanks.
--
Sam

One consideration is digital crashes, cards burn up, data gets corrupted. I
would stay with the film and do the scanner route. I just decided to get a
Nikon 9000 and keep shooting 35mm, and medium format. I can even make small
positives from my 4x5's that can be scanned by the medium format.  I have
only had one camera poop out on me in the field preventing me from shooting
with it. I have seen some rather noisy original digital images. Once you
have the film processed it will be around for a long time. 

And if you want to make a silver print, you can. No film recorder, no white
film output with your inkjet. Just the sound of water running and a little
music playing ; ) 

And you can bring your old work with you into the new media. 

Film and scanner is my recommendation. 

Eric

Well John, I am certainly right too, because of course drum scanners 
cover a range, and I didn't and never would suggest it could beat all of 
them. But I agree with you that it is likely to be good enough to beat 
some, and that also the differences between what it can do and the best 
will not matter to all but the most demanding users and applications.

The test results I've seen so far are extremely good. I don't actually 
know what Epson claim, not having bothered to read their press releases 
due to my own scepticism, but it certainly seems a useful advance on 
their previous models.  I'm not surprised that technology improves.

Of course it isn't just a matter of hardware, there is also software and 
the operator to take into account. I've seen drum scans that were pretty 
hopeless. The new Epsons will at least be rather easier to set up and to 
keep working well as well as easier and faster to use than most drum or 
high end flatbeds.

Regards

Peter

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
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......



john dean wrote:

> Mark is right. "More or less"? More or less Imacon, possibly, more or
> less PMT, not.What in the world is that about. I pray that you will
> make us eat our words but that isn't likely.
>
> Epson sent out a workshop teacher instructor to APA,(I won't mention
> his name because I am more polite than that) about four years ago.
> People paid over $100.00 to do that seminar. One of the first things
> he said was - if you put together a magnetic film holder avalable from
> parts at Home Depot on this regular Epson flatbed it will give you
> "just as good of quality as any drum scanner". A bunch of us looked at
> each other and busted out laughing, then the whole auditorium groaned,
> we had just paid $100.00 and we knew it was downhill from there. 
>
> Forgive us if we are skeptical of claims like that. This is about the
> 4th version of it that I personally have head about. I just saw one of
> those scans today from a scanner that was sold to my ad photo client
> with similar hyperbole. You have really good photo studios that go out
> and buy these things and think they can do high end work with them.
> Then they end up really pissed and having to farm it out everytime.
> Now they are simply going to the 5D.
>
> Like I said. I pray this time they are telling the truth, but we're
> not going to throw away our PMT scanners anytime soon and their track
> record is not good.
>
> John
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall
> <petermarshall@...> wrote:
>   
>> Mark,
>>
>> I've not seen Epson's hype. I have looked at the only detailed hands-on 
>> review of the V700 that I'm aware of, by Vincent Oliver, which he 
>> finished a day or so ago. There are a few minor issues, one of which 
>> should be resolved by the V750 which will cut out some minor light 
>> scatter. The results he shows are pretty good, and his conclusion isn't 
>> a great deal different from mine.
>>
>> (Note that I did say "more or less the same quality", not that they 
>> would beat the best, though it will not surprise me if they equal or 
>> beat some that cost a considerable amount more - it shouldn't surprise 
>> anyone given how technology improves. The camera I'm using at the
>>     
> moment 
>   
>> trounces those that cost 20 times a much a few years back after all.)
>>
>> But doubtless your remarks are based on extensive field testing :-)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> Peter Marshall
>> petermarshall@...    
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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......
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark Savoia wrote:
>>     
>>> Peter,
>>> A $799 scanner that will beat or match scanners costing many  
>>> thousands of dollars? Not buying Epson's hype, are you?
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Mar 24, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Peter Marshall wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> giving more or less the same
>>>> quality as more expensive drum or virtual drum scanners,
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>       
>

Peter, You make a great point. Hardware and software make a hugh difference,
but you still need a skilled operator to get the best out of it. I have seen
cases where a little Epson 3200 made better scans than a high end drum
scanner. 

Eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Peter Marshall
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 12:03 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
> 
> Well John, I am certainly right too, because of course drum
> scanners
> cover a range, and I didn't and never would suggest it could
> beat all of
> them. But I agree with you that it is likely to be good enough
> to beat
> some, and that also the differences between what it can do and
> the best
> will not matter to all but the most demanding users and
> applications.
> 
> The test results I've seen so far are extremely good. I don't
> actually
> know what Epson claim, not having bothered to read their press
> releases
> due to my own scepticism, but it certainly seems a useful
> advance on
> their previous models.  I'm not surprised that technology
> improves.
> 
> Of course it isn't just a matter of hardware, there is also
> software and
> the operator to take into account. I've seen drum scans that
> were pretty
> hopeless. The new Epsons will at least be rather easier to set
> up and to
> keep working well as well as easier and faster to use than most
> drum or
> high end flatbeds.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Peter
> 
> Peter Marshall
> petermarshall@...
> _______________________________________________________________
> __
> 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......
> 
> 
> 
> john dean wrote:
> > Mark is right. "More or less"? More or less Imacon, possibly,
> more or
> > less PMT, not.What in the world is that about. I pray that
> you will
> > make us eat our words but that isn't likely.
> >
> > Epson sent out a workshop teacher instructor to APA,(I won't
> mention
> > his name because I am more polite than that) about four years
> ago.
> > People paid over $100.00 to do that seminar. One of the first
> things
> > he said was - if you put together a magnetic film holder
> avalable from
> > parts at Home Depot on this regular Epson flatbed it will
> give you
> > "just as good of quality as any drum scanner". A bunch of us
> looked at
> > each other and busted out laughing, then the whole auditorium
> groaned,
> > we had just paid $100.00 and we knew it was downhill from
> there.
> >
> > Forgive us if we are skeptical of claims like that. This is
> about the
> > 4th version of it that I personally have head about. I just
> saw one of
> > those scans today from a scanner that was sold to my ad photo
> client
> > with similar hyperbole. You have really good photo studios
> that go out
> > and buy these things and think they can do high end work with
> them.
> > Then they end up really pissed and having to farm it out
> everytime.
> > Now they are simply going to the 5D.
> >
> > Like I said. I pray this time they are telling the truth, but
> we're
> > not going to throw away our PMT scanners anytime soon and
> their track
> > record is not good.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter
> Marshall
> > <petermarshall@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Mark,
> >>
> >> I've not seen Epson's hype. I have looked at the only
> detailed hands-on
> >> review of the V700 that I'm aware of, by Vincent Oliver,
> which he
> >> finished a day or so ago. There are a few minor issues, one
> of which
> >> should be resolved by the V750 which will cut out some minor
> light
> >> scatter. The results he shows are pretty good, and his
> conclusion isn't
> >> a great deal different from mine.
> >>
> >> (Note that I did say "more or less the same quality", not
> that they
> >> would beat the best, though it will not surprise me if they
> equal or
> >> beat some that cost a considerable amount more - it
> shouldn't surprise
> >> anyone given how technology improves. The camera I'm using
> at the
> >>
> > moment
> >
> >> trounces those that cost 20 times a much a few years back
> after all.)
> >>
> >> But doubtless your remarks are based on extensive field
> testing :-)
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> Peter Marshall
> >> petermarshall@...
> >>
> _______________________________________________________________
> __
> >> 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......
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mark Savoia wrote:
> >>
> >>> Peter,
> >>> A $799 scanner that will beat or match scanners costing
> many
> >>> thousands of dollars? Not buying Epson's hype, are you?
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 24, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Peter Marshall wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> giving more or less the same
> >>>> quality as more expensive drum or virtual drum scanners,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> [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/file
> s/
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>

Brian,

I think you are taking my reply out of context. I think it was to 
someone who was considering 35mm film, not large format, and I think it 
is true for most prints from 35mm film. From film - mainly ISO400 for 
the kind of photojournalistic work I mainly do - I was getting good 
prints either direct or from scans up to around 12x8" or slightly 
larger, but above that I could see a loss in quality. Of course I did 
sometimes make larger prints - 24x20" and even on occasion A1 and 
larger, but the grain and loss of sharpness are apparent, though a slow 
film like Tech Pan (sadly no longer) did pretty well. Some of them are 
pretty good prints, either because or in spite of the grain.1

With digital, working from 6Mp, my basic print size without seeing any 
real quality loss went up from 13x9 to 15x10 inches. You have much lower 
noise with digital, but you don't get any more detail. With the D200 I 
hope to push it a little further - really to anything I can print on 
A3+, which is the largest my ink jet printer takes..

When I've worked with 4x5 (or even 6x7 - or 8x10 come to that), then 
I've printed at 20x16 or 24x20, and larger sizes would be possible. In 
fact the only 4x5 work I've had a part in over recent years has been 
scans for repro on A4 covers. I've done these with good results on a 
1200 dpi flatbed, and I don't think the printed results would have been 
any better at a higher res.

Regards,

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
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......



Brian Ellis wrote:

> "However for new images you will probably get better quality from a
> camera such as the Nikon D200 or Canon 5D rather than film under almost
> all circumstances"
>
> At what print size do you think this is true? I have a 5D and some Canon L 
> lenses due to arrive next week (finally gave up on Nikon) and I'm pretty 
> excited but I'm not expecting to make prints comparable to those made from 
> my 4x5 and 8x10 film scans at any size beyond 11x14  (I'll actually be happy 
> if the 5D is just as good, forget about better, even at just 11x14). The 
> (admittedly few) prints larger than 11x14 that I've seen from the much more 
> expensive Canon Mark II Whateveritscalled were o.k. but certainly not the 
> equal of comparably sized prints I've made and seen others make from a 4x5 
> scan. The only large (over 11x14) prints I've seen from a digital source 
> that can compare with those made from 4x5 scans were done with a digital 
> back on a Mamiya body but that outfit cost $30,000. My 4x5 outfit cost about 
> $4000 and if I wanted to scrimp it could have cost a whole lot less.
>
> There are, of course, many benefits that can be obtained from a high quality 
> digital camera that can't be obtained from 4x5 - mobility, instant feedback, 
> ease of use, speed, etc. - but so far better print quality isn't one of them 
> in my experience .
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Peter Marshall" <petermarshall@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
>
>
>   
>> I think the Epson V750 Pro (due in May) is going to make dedicated film
>> scanners such as the Minolta ones obsolete, giving more or less the same
>> quality as more expensive drum or virtual drum scanners, but with
>> greatly improved ease and speed of use.
>>
>> However for new images you will probably get better quality from a
>> camera such as the Nikon D200 or Canon 5D rather than film under almost
>> all circumstances. And with cheaper models such as the D50 or D70 under
>> most.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Peter Marshall
>> petermarshall@...
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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......
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg wrote:
>>     
>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Adam Maas
>>> <mykroft@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> PanF and similar can outperform affordable Digital. But if you shoot
>>>> high-ISO digital will provide cleaner images (especially at 3200).
>>>>
>>>> Note that the Scan Dual III and IV only produce around 10MP scans,
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> you
>>>
>>>       
>>>> aren't getting 20+MP of info from them. The 5400 will do better.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Is KM going to continue making scanners, or did those go the way of
>>> their cameras?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>

I've used 8x10 and I have to say it was never a match for 35mm for most 
of the things I wanted to do as a photographer. It depends what you 
want. There isn't a single path. My vote for the greatest photographer 
of the 20th century would quite probably go either to Andre Kertesz or 
Robert Frank or Walker Evans depending which side of the bed I got out 
of this morning. Never of course to Ansel, although occasionally to 
Edward W. and more often to Bill Brandt.

Regards,

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
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......



cloudswimmer7774 wrote:

> Man I hear this all the time.Mostly at DPreview dot comm.Is digital
> capture really now a match for 8x10 BW film in fine art?I live on the
> Calif. coast and frequent quite a few galleries.I have yet to see a
> digital captured BW image that drops my jaw like Brett's stuff shot
> with his old Calumet C-1, or Ansels large 8x10 stuff.I'm not totally
> convinced these guys would be capturing with digital.
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>> It's worth something. Not a single one of the photographers you
>> mentioned, if they were in the prime of their career would NOT be
>> shooting digital capture, especially Ansel Adams. He told us himself 
>> decades ago before he died that he wished it was available to him
>> then. It wasn't. 
>>     
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>

Film has never quite equalled wet plate in many respects, so perhaps try 
making that, which I think is a little easier.

Regards,

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
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:

> Better start learning to make film then....
>
>
>   
>> From: joshscapes <joshrandall@...>
>> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:01:41 -0000
>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
>>
>> Row, row, row your boat
>> gently down the stream...
>> merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
>> getting as good result with digital as you get with film is but a
>> dream.
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>

Anyone who has studied the marketplace today knows that as long as 
there is a need for a product, someone will make that product.  
There are hundred of millions of film cameras in the world today.  
Very few countries can afford to go digital.  I would be very very 
very suprised to see film ever die.  For goodness sakes you can 
still get a typewriter from bestbuy.com with correction tape and 
all.  I bet some of you were hollering that typewriters will no 
longer be available too when computers came out.  You can also get 
your favorite artist recorded on vinyl records still.  Do some 
research on the internet, you'll see. Things that the media labels 
as obsolete and extinct, are not.  They are just no longer main 
stream, which in the medias eyes is extinct.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall 
<petermarshall@...> wrote:
>
> Film has never quite equalled wet plate in many respects, so 
perhaps try 
> making that, which I think is a little easier.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter Marshall
> petermarshall@...     
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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:
> > Better start learning to make film then....
> >
> >
> >   
> >> From: joshscapes <joshrandall@...>
> >> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:01:41 -0000
> >> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
> >>
> >> Row, row, row your boat
> >> gently down the stream...
> >> merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
> >> getting as good result with digital as you get with film is but 
a
> >> dream.
> >>
> >>     
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 second Eric's recommendation.  Filim and scanner is a lovely 
combination that produces beautiful results.  And, if ever a better 
scanner comes on the market, you still have your film to rescan.  
When better cameras come on the market with digital, their old 
digital files are still what they are.  NO chance for improvement 
with technology.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen 
Photo 2" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> One consideration is digital crashes, cards burn up, data gets 
corrupted. I
> would stay with the film and do the scanner route. I just decided 
to get a
> Nikon 9000 and keep shooting 35mm, and medium format. I can even 
make small
> positives from my 4x5's that can be scanned by the medium format.  
I have
> only had one camera poop out on me in the field preventing me from 
shooting
> with it. I have seen some rather noisy original digital images. 
Once you
> have the film processed it will be around for a long time. 
> 
> And if you want to make a silver print, you can. No film recorder, 
no white
> film output with your inkjet. Just the sound of water running and 
a little

> music playing ; ) 
> 
> And you can bring your old work with you into the new media. 
> 
> Film and scanner is my recommendation. 
> 
> Eric
>

Enough already, must we go through this topic every other month!

Gary

www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joshscapes" <joshrandall@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera


I second Eric's recommendation.  Filim and scanner is a lovely
combination that produces beautiful results.  And, if ever a better
scanner comes on the market, you still have your film to rescan.
When better cameras come on the market with digital, their old
digital files are still what they are.  NO chance for improvement
with technology.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen
Photo 2" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> One consideration is digital crashes, cards burn up, data gets
corrupted. I
> would stay with the film and do the scanner route. I just decided
to get a
> Nikon 9000 and keep shooting 35mm, and medium format. I can even
make small
> positives from my 4x5's that can be scanned by the medium format.
I have
> only had one camera poop out on me in the field preventing me from
shooting
> with it. I have seen some rather noisy original digital images.
Once you
> have the film processed it will be around for a long time.
>
> And if you want to make a silver print, you can. No film recorder,
no white
> film output with your inkjet. Just the sound of water running and
a little
> music playing ; )
>
> And you can bring your old work with you into the new media.
>
> Film and scanner is my recommendation.
>
> Eric
>






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

Sorry for the intrusion Gary. I have only been a member of the Digi B&W
group for a little while. But I am curious as to why an inquiry into which
method someone chooses to express the digital B&W expression would bring
such scorn? (limited as it was ; ) ) 

Is not this group here to discuss the making of digital B&W images? Must not
they come from some type of capture device? Man, I just moved an enlarger
table with two 4x5 enlargers, a 38x50 vacume frame and table, a 4'x 8'
finishing table and all just so that I could spray my ink jet prints without
over spray going every where. Certainly a little rethinking comes into
everyones life that deals with digital. Is it so much to ask to share a
little insight?   

Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
http://ericneilsenphotography.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary
> Brown
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 3:26 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
> 
> Enough already, must we go through this topic every other month!
> 
> Gary
> 
> www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "joshscapes" <joshrandall@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
> 
> 
> I second Eric's recommendation.  Filim and scanner is a lovely
> combination that produces beautiful results.  And, if ever a better
> scanner comes on the market, you still have your film to rescan.
> When better cameras come on the market with digital, their old
> digital files are still what they are.  NO chance for improvement
> with technology.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen
> Photo 2" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
> >
> > One consideration is digital crashes, cards burn up, data gets
> corrupted. I
> > would stay with the film and do the scanner route. I just decided
> to get a
> > Nikon 9000 and keep shooting 35mm, and medium format. I can even
> make small
> > positives from my 4x5's that can be scanned by the medium format.
> I have
> > only had one camera poop out on me in the field preventing me from
> shooting
> > with it. I have seen some rather noisy original digital images.
> Once you
> > have the film processed it will be around for a long time.
> >
> > And if you want to make a silver print, you can. No film recorder,
> no white
> > film output with your inkjet. Just the sound of water running and
> a little
> > music playing ; )
> >
> > And you can bring your old work with you into the new media.
> >
> > Film and scanner is my recommendation.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Erik, I think Gary (like a lot of us are) is tired of the whole 
digital vs. film debate.  Not your recommendation on prefered 
method.  Obviously when someone asked for a recommendation, one of 
the most valuable things about this forum, is that those 
recommendations can be given honestly.  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen " 
<e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry for the intrusion Gary. I have only been a member of the 
Digi B&W
> group for a little while. But I am curious as to why an inquiry 
into which
> method someone chooses to express the digital B&W expression would 
bring
> such scorn? (limited as it was ; ) ) 
> 
> Is not this group here to discuss the making of digital B&W 
images? Must not
> they come from some type of capture device? Man, I just moved an 
enlarger
> table with two 4x5 enlargers, a 38x50 vacume frame and table, a 
4'x 8'
> finishing table and all just so that I could spray my ink jet 
prints without
> over spray going every where. Certainly a little rethinking comes 
into
> everyones life that deals with digital. Is it so much to ask to 
share a
> little insight?   
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 4101 Commerce Street
> Suite 9
> Dallas, TX 75226
> http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
>  
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 
Of Gary
> > Brown
> > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 3:26 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
> > 
> > Enough already, must we go through this topic every other month!
> > 
> > Gary
> > 
> > www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "joshscapes" <joshrandall@...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
> > 
> > 
> > I second Eric's recommendation.  Filim and scanner is a lovely
> > combination that produces beautiful results.  And, if ever a 
better
> > scanner comes on the market, you still have your film to rescan.
> > When better cameras come on the market with digital, their old
> > digital files are still what they are.  NO chance for improvement
> > with technology.
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric 
Neilsen
> > Photo 2" <e.neilsen2@> wrote:
> > >
> > > One consideration is digital crashes, cards burn up, data gets
> > corrupted. I
> > > would stay with the film and do the scanner route. I just 
decided
> > to get a
> > > Nikon 9000 and keep shooting 35mm, and medium format. I can 
even
> > make small
> > > positives from my 4x5's that can be scanned by the medium 
format.
> > I have
> > > only had one camera poop out on me in the field preventing me 
from
> > shooting
> > > with it. I have seen some rather noisy original digital images.
> > Once you
> > > have the film processed it will be around for a long time.
> > >
> > > And if you want to make a silver print, you can. No film 
recorder,
> > no white
> > > film output with your inkjet. Just the sound of water running 
and
> > a little
> > > music playing ; )
> > >
> > > And you can bring your old work with you into the new media.
> > >
> > > Film and scanner is my recommendation.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>

Peter et al, Your list is so close to mine as to send
chills down my spine.  If I had to narrow it down to
two heroes it would be Andre Kertesz and Edward Weston
- in no particular order.  Both used tools appropriate
to their vision and sometimes  experimented.  One of
Kertesz's last projects was with a Polaroid SX70. 
Weston used a handheld Graflex SLR 4x5 for more
spontaneous portraiture.

Not to compare myself but only to "take a lesson" from
the greats, I too have worked in 8x10 view, Medium
Format, 35mm, and digital. Artists frequently work in
"periods" such as Picasso's famous "blue" one.  I seem
to get out of a "different side of the bed" about
every decade. I started as a street shooter in 1969; 
next worked mostly MF interiors, still-lifes, and
portraits; then 8x10 interiors, still-lifes,
portraits, and outdoor night work; now have come
almost full circle, and am doing street and cafe
shooting once again.  I've had occasion to think about
all this as I sift through more than 30 years of
negatives for scanning, Photo-shop work-up, and
digital printing. And yes, almost all B&W to stay OT.

For nostalgia I like working with former Soviet Leica
and Contax copies.  But I must say that for actually
acquiring images - digital is much better in virtually
all technical aspects for candid street and cafe work.
 I just need to balance whether my nostalgic feelings
(e.g imagining I'm Kertesz or Bresson) , or working
with the tool they would have chosen if available to
them at the time is more important.  I don't think
there is much question that the Greats of
photographing that-which=is-in-motion would have
chosen digital if it had been available to them.  The
biggest problem for me is what is frequently touted as
digital's biggest advantage - immediate feedback. I
agree with Nick Brandt that the processes of
expectation (both realized and confounded), and chance
have always been important for me.   Digital sometimes
short-circuits this process too quickly.  It's 
relatively easy for most of us to obtain (again) what
we or others have already obtained - at least in terms
of the technical, subject matte,r and overall visual
intent .  What's hard is to develop ones vision in a
new way. To learn to see anew. Chance and percolation
time have been essential in this process for me- and I
would imagine for many.

If the question is: "Is digital state-of-the-art up to
the task technically for hand-held work relative to
35mm film"  - I believe most would agree there is no
question about that in 2006. "Can digital  sometime in
the near-future rival a contact print from an 8x10
film negative (Weston's and my benchmark) and how near
is it and how much will it cost" is a more open
question and much more interesting for me.   As to how
one best finds the tools and methods that work best
for them in the evolution of their vision - that is
something only personal experience (including
listening and looking at the work of others) can
answer.

As an aside, while browsing Clayton's site I followed
a link to the work of Nikolas Hartman.  His vision is
incredible.  Check-out his site out if you haven't. 
If you love Kertesz - I think you'll like his work. 
He happens to work with 35mm RF's and BO printing. But
that is, of course, just what works for him.

Michael Vendrell  
--- Peter Marshall <petermarshall@...> wrote:

> I've used 8x10 and I have to say it was never a
> match for 35mm for most 
> of the things I wanted to do as a photographer. It
> depends what you 
> want. There isn't a single path. My vote for the
> greatest photographer 
> of the 20th century would quite probably go either
> to Andre Kertesz or 
> Robert Frank or Walker Evans depending which side of
> the bed I got out 
> of this morning. Never of course to Ansel, although
> occasionally to 
> Edward W. and more often to Bill Brandt.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter Marshall
> petermarshall@...     
>
_________________________________________________________________
> 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......
> 
> 
> 
> cloudswimmer7774 wrote:
> > Man I hear this all the time.Mostly at DPreview
> dot comm.Is digital
> > capture really now a match for 8x10 BW film in
> fine art?I live on the
> > Calif. coast and frequent quite a few galleries.I
> have yet to see a
> > digital captured BW image that drops my jaw like
> Brett's stuff shot
> > with his old Calumet C-1, or Ansels large 8x10
> stuff.I'm not totally
> > convinced these guys would be capturing with
> digital.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> >> It's worth something. Not a single one of the
> photographers you
> >> mentioned, if they were in the prime of their
> career would NOT be
> >> shooting digital capture, especially Ansel Adams.
> He told us himself 
> >> decades ago before he died that he wished it was
> available to him
> >> then. It wasn't. 
> >>     
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> 
>    
>
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

And please deliver us from the demons of photo history, and the
irrational temptations of evil chemicals, for ever, and ever, Amen


(the omniscient ghosts of Brett Weston and Beaumont Newhall)

Eric:

  The fact is, this topic and several others which seem to be on 1-3 month
  cycles are discussed adnausium each time. It usually starts with "I'm new 
  to the list" etc, etc, then it is the same information by the same people,
  taking the same sides of the discussion over and over again. Anyone new to
  the list can usually find what they are looking for by searching old postings. I realize the searching utility in Yahoo is not the greatest, but it does work if one is willing to do the research.

  There used to be a time, that before you would write a letter to an author,
  you would actually have to read the book. Don't get me wrong, I am 
  delighted and marvel at the world of information that is available to me today, and
  what I have learned from this list has been invaluable. That said, I get a
  little tired of people unwilling to put in the time before they start 
  asking questions.

  By the way don't take things so personally.

  Gary

  www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown
  www.gabsculpture.com

  >
  >>----- Original Message ----- 
  >>From: "Eric Neilsen " <e.neilsen2@...>
  >>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
  >>Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:49 PM
  >>Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
  >
  >
  >>Sorry for the intrusion Gary. I have only been a member of the Digi B&W
  >>group for a little while. But I am curious as to why an inquiry into which
  >>method someone chooses to express the digital B&W expression would bring
  >>such scorn? (limited as it was ; ) )
  >
  >>Is not this group here to discuss the making of digital B&W images? Must 
  >>not
  >>they come from some type of capture device? Man, I just moved an enlarger
  >>table with two 4x5 enlargers, a 38x50 vacume frame and table, a 4'x 8'
  >>finishing table and all just so that I could spray my ink jet prints 
  >>without
  >>over spray going every where. Certainly a little rethinking comes into
  >>everyones life that deals with digital. Is it so much to ask to share a
  >>little insight?
  >
  >>Eric Neilsen Photography
  >>4101 Commerce Street
  >>Suite 9
  >>Dallas, TX 75226
  >>http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
  >>http://ericneilsenphotography.com
  > 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    a..  Visit your group "DigitalBW-PrintExchanges" on the web.
      
    b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     DigitalBW-PrintExchanges-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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



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

Hi Michael,

Do you mean Nicholas Hartmann http://www.nhartmann.com/photography/ who 
is the son of Erich Hartmann who was a fine photojournalist. He also 
mentions Charles Harbutt, whose book Travelog was also an inspiration to 
me (and many years later I did a workshop with him.)

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......



Michael Vendrell wrote:

> Peter et al, Your list is so close to mine as to send
> chills down my spine.  If I had to narrow it down to
> two heroes it would be Andre Kertesz and Edward Weston
> - in no particular order.  Both used tools appropriate
> to their vision and sometimes  experimented.  One of
> Kertesz's last projects was with a Polaroid SX70. 
> Weston used a handheld Graflex SLR 4x5 for more
> spontaneous portraiture.
>
> Not to compare myself but only to "take a lesson" from
> the greats, I too have worked in 8x10 view, Medium
> Format, 35mm, and digital. Artists frequently work in
> "periods" such as Picasso's famous "blue" one.  I seem
> to get out of a "different side of the bed" about
> every decade. I started as a street shooter in 1969; 
> next worked mostly MF interiors, still-lifes, and
> portraits; then 8x10 interiors, still-lifes,
> portraits, and outdoor night work; now have come
> almost full circle, and am doing street and cafe
> shooting once again.  I've had occasion to think about
> all this as I sift through more than 30 years of
> negatives for scanning, Photo-shop work-up, and
> digital printing. And yes, almost all B&W to stay OT.
>
> For nostalgia I like working with former Soviet Leica
> and Contax copies.  But I must say that for actually
> acquiring images - digital is much better in virtually
> all technical aspects for candid street and cafe work.
>  I just need to balance whether my nostalgic feelings
> (e.g imagining I'm Kertesz or Bresson) , or working
> with the tool they would have chosen if available to
> them at the time is more important.  I don't think
> there is much question that the Greats of
> photographing that-which=is-in-motion would have
> chosen digital if it had been available to them.  The
> biggest problem for me is what is frequently touted as
> digital's biggest advantage - immediate feedback. I
> agree with Nick Brandt that the processes of
> expectation (both realized and confounded), and chance
> have always been important for me.   Digital sometimes
> short-circuits this process too quickly.  It's 
> relatively easy for most of us to obtain (again) what
> we or others have already obtained - at least in terms
> of the technical, subject matte,r and overall visual
> intent .  What's hard is to develop ones vision in a
> new way. To learn to see anew. Chance and percolation
> time have been essential in this process for me- and I
> would imagine for many.
>
> If the question is: "Is digital state-of-the-art up to
> the task technically for hand-held work relative to
> 35mm film"  - I believe most would agree there is no
> question about that in 2006. "Can digital  sometime in
> the near-future rival a contact print from an 8x10
> film negative (Weston's and my benchmark) and how near
> is it and how much will it cost" is a more open
> question and much more interesting for me.   As to how
> one best finds the tools and methods that work best
> for them in the evolution of their vision - that is
> something only personal experience (including
> listening and looking at the work of others) can
> answer.
>
> As an aside, while browsing Clayton's site I followed
> a link to the work of Nikolas Hartman.  His vision is
> incredible.  Check-out his site out if you haven't. 
> If you love Kertesz - I think you'll like his work. 
> He happens to work with 35mm RF's and BO printing. But
> that is, of course, just what works for him.
>
> Michael Vendrell  
> --- Peter Marshall <petermarshall@...> wrote:
>
>   
>> I've used 8x10 and I have to say it was never a
>> match for 35mm for most 
>> of the things I wanted to do as a photographer. It
>> depends what you 
>> want. There isn't a single path. My vote for the
>> greatest photographer 
>> of the 20th century would quite probably go either
>> to Andre Kertesz or 
>> Robert Frank or Walker Evans depending which side of
>> the bed I got out 
>> of this morning. Never of course to Ansel, although
>> occasionally to 
>> Edward W. and more often to Bill Brandt.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter Marshall
>> petermarshall@...     
>>
>>     
> _________________________________________________________________
>   
>> 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......
>>
>>
>>
>> cloudswimmer7774 wrote:
>>     
>>> Man I hear this all the time.Mostly at DPreview
>>>       
>> dot comm.Is digital
>>     
>>> capture really now a match for 8x10 BW film in
>>>       
>> fine art?I live on the
>>     
>>> Calif. coast and frequent quite a few galleries.I
>>>       
>> have yet to see a
>>     
>>> digital captured BW image that drops my jaw like
>>>       
>> Brett's stuff shot
>>     
>>> with his old Calumet C-1, or Ansels large 8x10
>>>       
>> stuff.I'm not totally
>>     
>>> convinced these guys would be capturing with
>>>       
>> digital.
>>     
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> It's worth something. Not a single one of the
>>>>         
>> photographers you
>>     
>>>> mentioned, if they were in the prime of their
>>>>         
>> career would NOT be
>>     
>>>> shooting digital capture, especially Ansel Adams.
>>>>         
>> He told us himself 
>>     
>>>> decades ago before he died that he wished it was
>>>>         
>> available to him
>>     
>>>> then. It wasn't. 
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> 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
>>
>>
>>     
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>   
>>    
>>
>>     
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.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 \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, YES that's him and his web-site.  Clayton
Jone's site also has a link to a two-Part interview
with him.  Sorry for my sloppy spelling of his name. 
I particularly am drawn to the image from Rome with
the raised hand and the shadows.  I think that one in
particular is a masterpiece.

He lives in Milwaukee near where I now live in the
Twin Cities of Minnesota.  I keep meaning to get in
direct touch with him, but so far have procrastinated.
  Maybe this will push me to do it!

Kindest regards,  Michael Vendrell

--- Peter Marshall <petermarshall@...> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
> 
> Do you mean Nicholas Hartmann
> http://www.nhartmann.com/photography/ who 
> is the son of Erich Hartmann who was a fine
> photojournalist. He also 
> mentions Charles Harbutt, whose book Travelog was
> also an inspiration to 
> me (and many years later I did a workshop with him.)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter
> 
> Peter Marshall

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

Gary,

Although I sympathise with you in that there are questions which are 
brought up time after time, I think we do have to revisit these topics 
relatively frequently as technology does not stand still.

In this case we have new cameras - such as the latest Hasselblads, which 
will shift the balance for some people, as well as advances in scanning. 
Both are relevant to the list. Four years ago I would have argued long 
for the superiority of film and scanning in almost all areas, now things 
are very different. So searching for those old postings often has little 
value in the case of this topic.

A few months ago I was advising people that unless they could spend very 
large amounts of money on a scanner, they should buy a dedicated film 
scanner - such as the Minolta Multipro that I'm still using. Now my 
advice is almost certainly changing to reflect advances in scanner 
technology.

Regards,

Peter

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
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......



Gary Brown wrote:

>
>
>
>   Eric:
>
>   The fact is, this topic and several others which seem to be on 1-3 month
>   cycles are discussed adnausium each time. It usually starts with "I'm new 
>   to the list" etc, etc, then it is the same information by the same people,
>   taking the same sides of the discussion over and over again. Anyone new to
>   the list can usually find what they are looking for by searching old postings. I realize the searching utility in Yahoo is not the greatest, but it does work if one is willing to do the research.
>
>   There used to be a time, that before you would write a letter to an author,
>   you would actually have to read the book. Don't get me wrong, I am 
>   delighted and marvel at the world of information that is available to me today, and
>   what I have learned from this list has been invaluable. That said, I get a
>   little tired of people unwilling to put in the time before they start 
>   asking questions.
>
>   By the way don't take things so personally.
>
>   Gary
>
>   www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown
>   www.gabsculpture.com
>
>   >
>   >>----- Original Message ----- 
>   >>From: "Eric Neilsen " <e.neilsen2@...>
>   >>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>   >>Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:49 PM
>   >>Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
>   >
>   >
>   >>Sorry for the intrusion Gary. I have only been a member of the Digi B&W
>   >>group for a little while. But I am curious as to why an inquiry into which
>   >>method someone chooses to express the digital B&W expression would bring
>   >>such scorn? (limited as it was ; ) )
>   >
>   >>Is not this group here to discuss the making of digital B&W images? Must 
>   >>not
>   >>they come from some type of capture device? Man, I just moved an enlarger
>   >>table with two 4x5 enlargers, a 38x50 vacume frame and table, a 4'x 8'
>   >>finishing table and all just so that I could spray my ink jet prints 
>   >>without
>   >>over spray going every where. Certainly a little rethinking comes into
>   >>everyones life that deals with digital. Is it so much to ask to share a
>   >>little insight?
>   >
>   >>Eric Neilsen Photography
>   >>4101 Commerce Street
>   >>Suite 9
>   >>Dallas, TX 75226
>   >>http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
>   >>http://ericneilsenphotography.com
>   > 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
>
>     a..  Visit your group "DigitalBW-PrintExchanges" on the web.
>       
>     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>      DigitalBW-PrintExchanges-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       
>     c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> [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
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>

And capture and initial processing (whether chemical development or 
digital, i.e. file type) is the only point in the entire process 
that is irreversable and not re-doable. Therfore, it is a VERY 
important binary initial decision for what we do.  Almost all other 
things can be changed later when either new technology, new 
knowledge, or just renewed inspiration arises.

Michael Vendrell

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall 
<petermarshall@...> wrote:
>
> Gary,
> 
> Although I sympathise with you in that there are questions which 
are 
> brought up time after time, I think we do have to revisit these 
topics 
> relatively frequently as technology does not stand still.
> 
> In this case we have new cameras - such as the latest Hasselblads, 
which 
> will shift the balance for some people, as well as advances in 
scanning. 
> Both are relevant to the list. Four years ago I would have argued 
long 
> for the superiority of film and scanning in almost all areas, now 
things 
> are very different. So searching for those old postings often has 
little 
> value in the case of this topic.
> 
> A few months ago I was advising people that unless they could 
spend very 
> large amounts of money on a scanner, they should buy a dedicated 
film 
> scanner - such as the Minolta Multipro that I'm still using. Now 
my 
> advice is almost certainly changing to reflect advances in scanner 
> technology.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter
> 
> Peter Marshall
> petermarshall@...     
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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......
> 
> 
> 
> Gary Brown wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >   Eric:
> >
> >   The fact is, this topic and several others which seem to be on 
1-3 month
> >   cycles are discussed adnausium each time. It usually starts 
with "I'm new 
> >   to the list" etc, etc, then it is the same information by the 
same people,
> >   taking the same sides of the discussion over and over again. 
Anyone new to
> >   the list can usually find what they are looking for by 
searching old postings. I realize the searching utility in Yahoo is 
not the greatest, but it does work if one is willing to do the 
research.
> >
> >   There used to be a time, that before you would write a letter 
to an author,
> >   you would actually have to read the book. Don't get me wrong, 
I am 
> >   delighted and marvel at the world of information that is 
available to me today, and
> >   what I have learned from this list has been invaluable. That 
said, I get a
> >   little tired of people unwilling to put in the time before 
they start 
> >   asking questions.
> >
> >   By the way don't take things so personally.
> >
> >   Gary
> >
> >   www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown
> >   www.gabsculpture.com
> >
> >   >
> >   >>----- Original Message ----- 
> >   >>From: "Eric Neilsen " <e.neilsen2@...>
> >   >>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> >   >>Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:49 PM
> >   >>Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >>Sorry for the intrusion Gary. I have only been a member of 
the Digi B&W
> >   >>group for a little while. But I am curious as to why an 
inquiry into which
> >   >>method someone chooses to express the digital B&W expression 
would bring
> >   >>such scorn? (limited as it was ; ) )
> >   >
> >   >>Is not this group here to discuss the making of digital B&W 
images? Must 
> >   >>not
> >   >>they come from some type of capture device? Man, I just 
moved an enlarger
> >   >>table with two 4x5 enlargers, a 38x50 vacume frame and 
table, a 4'x 8'
> >   >>finishing table and all just so that I could spray my ink 
jet prints 
> >   >>without
> >   >>over spray going every where. Certainly a little rethinking 
comes into
> >   >>everyones life that deals with digital. Is it so much to ask 
to share a
> >   >>little insight?
> >   >
> >   >>Eric Neilsen Photography
> >   >>4101 Commerce Street
> >   >>Suite 9
> >   >>Dallas, TX 75226
> >   >>http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
> >   >>http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> >   > 
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> >   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
> >
> >     a..  Visit your group "DigitalBW-PrintExchanges" on the web.
> >       
> >     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >      DigitalBW-PrintExchanges-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >       
> >     c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! 
Terms of Service. 
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> >
> >
> >
> > [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
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hello All -
Now these are the kinds of discussions that I find personally, most 
interesting. After all, one can only go so far with technical 
discussion (as important as that is), before you have to look at the 
photograph itself - the emotional content, subject, light - all that 
and more that creates the impact of how we see and translate to the 
printed image. When all is said and done, the method - digital, film, 
format doesn't matter if the photo is boring.  This is something I try 
to think about whenever
I plan, shoot, and especially when editing. And since I teach as an 
adjunct, variations of this is what I try to impress upon students.

Since Michael and Peter were talking about large format, I'm wondering 
how many of you had similar experience to this:  As a student, we were 
all required
to own and shoot only with 4X5 or 8X10 camera.  I always enjoyed doing 
so, and only realized many years later, how that "forced" slow down of 
composing [upside down :-)] had such a strong impact on my entire 
career, even as I became a working photojournalist by my senior year in 
college -- of course working only
in 35 mm.  What I learned from large format, was how to compose a 
photograph, and working in fast moving journalistic situations, at 
least for me, enabled
me to get a pretty high percentage of interesting and/or unusual 
compositions to my work. I'd like to say developed a style, but 
hesitate, because I'm not sure, even after so many years, that I have 
that!  But I do feel that the large format  discipline was invaluable.

And yes - Kertesz, Frank and Weston, among others are my all time 
favorites along with John Heartfield (for his content).

Now 40 years later, I find myself shooting a lot of material on 6X9 (as 
large a format as I care to carry around to locations). So that means 
scanning and
printing with MK7 inks on a 2200. My darkroom seems to have disappeared 
about 3 years ago.

What experiences others have about all this?

Regards,

Clay Price

Michael Vendrell wrote:

>   ... As to how
> one best finds the tools and methods that work best
> for them in the evolution of their vision - that is
> something only personal experience (including
> listening and looking at the work of others) can
> answer....
> and Peter Marshall wrote:
>> I've used 8x10 and I have to say it was never a
>> match for 35mm for most
>> of the things I wanted to do as a photographer. It
>> depends what you
>> want. There isn't a single path. My vote for the
>> greatest photographer
>> of the 20th century would quite probably go either
>> to Andre Kertesz or
>> Robert Frank or Walker Evans depending which side of
>> the bed I got out
>> of this morning.

Hi Peter,
I recall (probably from another forum) that you are scanning on the 
Minolta Multipro (didn't you send me Eric's name at Scanhancer?)
I'm still using and liking that scanner, a lot, but now that they have 
discontinued it, the time will come when I'll have to look elsewhere.
What has your research shown in replacements of similar or better 
quality, comparative prices?  Some folks are talking a about a new
Epson scanner that's about to be released.  Any one been beta testing 
it?

Best,

Clay Price

On Mar 26, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Peter Marshall wrote:
>
>
> ....A few months ago I was advising people that unless they could 
> spend very
> large amounts of money on a scanner, they should buy a dedicated film
> scanner - such as the Minolta Multipro that I'm still using. Now my
> advice is almost certainly changing to reflect advances in scanner
> technology.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Clayton Price 
<clay@...> wrote:
>
> What has your research shown in replacements of similar or better 
> quality, comparative prices?  Some folks are talking a about a new
> Epson scanner that's about to be released.  Any one been beta 
testing 
> it?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Clay Price
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/Page%
2016.htm

Yahoo will probably kill that link, so you may have to cut and paste 
a couple of times to get the complete URL.

I'm waiting until the v750 model comes out. It is supposed to have 
better optics, etc., and also a wet mount adapter. From what I see of 
the v700 review, the 6400 ppi is not really real, but the 4800 ppi 
looks pretty good. Vincent always does a good job with his reviews, 
and gives enough info to make up your own mind.

YES - I didn't want to get into it earlier -- but
working with view cameras especially 8x10" and larger
- and to a lesser extent waist level ground glass
finders on MF - certainly influenced my vision and I
would expect many from this tradition have had similar
experience. There is an incredible look to a ground
glass image 8 x 10 or larger - it just looks
"photographic".  And so hard to explain to someone
that looking at the image upside-down is actually an
advantage for composition as it frees one at least to
some degree from preconception and allows better
appreciation of form.

As the view-screens on digital cameras get larger
there is some crossover with this 'viewing tradition'
- but it's just not quite the same. Not better or
worse - just different. I wish my present digital
camera (Olympus 8mp SP-350) would allow viewing in
B&W.  It will do an in-camera conversion which I
occasionally use for preview only (I usually save RAW
except when I need rapid acquisition in which case I
use SHQ JPEG)- but not real-time B&W viewing - at
least as far as I have been able to figure out. If
anyone has a suggestion for this other than the
obvious filter, I would be interested.

So the basic design of the cameras and not just the
recording media have an effect on ones vision.  Again,
not better or worse - just different.

Yes, boring is boring no matter what the medium - but
to state the obvious: stunning is stunning as well.

I'm a fairly young 54&11/12 and could, if I wanted to,
use the 8x10, but just can't seem to get up the
enthusiasm for lugging it and tripod around anymore -
not to mention loading the holders and developing the
sheets one at a time.  And, as Peter pointed out,
view-camera on tripod does confine one to certain
types of subjects and situations for which I've "paid
my dues" but my interests lie mainly elsewhere now.

As far as image quality is concerned, I'm very happy
with Pentax 6 x 7 cm negs on slow film such as TP and
Agfapan 25 scanned with a Nikon 9000 and digitally
printed.  Now that TP and Agfapan 25 are no more, I've
begun to experiment with ADOX and a few others
available from J & C and Freestyle.  If any of you are
ahead of me on this, I would be very interested as I
have only so much time to devote to such things.

Respectfully,
 
Michael Vendrell 

--- Clayton Price <clay@...> wrote:

> Hello All -
> Now these are the kinds of discussions that I find
> personally, most 
> interesting. After all, one can only go so far with
> technical 
> discussion (as important as that is), before you
> have to look at the 
> photograph itself - the emotional content, subject,
> light - all that 
> and more that creates the impact of how we see and
> translate to the 
> printed image. When all is said and done, the method
> - digital, film, 
> format doesn't matter if the photo is boring.  This
> is something I try 
> to think about whenever
> I plan, shoot, and especially when editing. And
> since I teach as an 
> adjunct, variations of this is what I try to impress
> upon students.
> 
> Since Michael and Peter were talking about large
> format, I'm wondering 
> how many of you had similar experience to this:  As
> a student, we were 
> all required
> to own and shoot only with 4X5 or 8X10 camera.  I
> always enjoyed doing 
> so, and only realized many years later, how that
> "forced" slow down of 
> composing [upside down :-)] had such a strong impact
> on my entire 
> career, even as I became a working photojournalist
> by my senior year in 
> college -- of course working only
> in 35 mm.  What I learned from large format, was how
> to compose a 
> photograph, and working in fast moving journalistic
> situations, at 
> least for me, enabled
> me to get a pretty high percentage of interesting
> and/or unusual 
> compositions to my work. I'd like to say developed a
> style, but 
> hesitate, because I'm not sure, even after so many
> years, that I have 
> that!  But I do feel that the large format 
> discipline was invaluable.
> 
> And yes - Kertesz, Frank and Weston, among others
> are my all time 
> favorites along with John Heartfield (for his
> content).
> 
> Now 40 years later, I find myself shooting a lot of
> material on 6X9 (as 
> large a format as I care to carry around to
> locations). So that means 
> scanning and
> printing with MK7 inks on a 2200. My darkroom seems
> to have disappeared 
> about 3 years ago.
> 
> What experiences others have about all this?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Clay Price
> 
> Michael Vendrell wrote:
> >   ... As to how
> > one best finds the tools and methods that work
> best
> > for them in the evolution of their vision - that
> is
> > something only personal experience (including
> > listening and looking at the work of others) can
> > answer....
> > and Peter Marshall wrote:
> >> I've used 8x10 and I have to say it was never a
> >> match for 35mm for most
> >> of the things I wanted to do as a photographer.
> It
> >> depends what you
> >> want. There isn't a single path. My vote for the
> >> greatest photographer
> >> of the 20th century would quite probably go
> either
> >> to Andre Kertesz or
> >> Robert Frank or Walker Evans depending which side
> of
> >> the bed I got out
> >> of this morning. 
> 
> 


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

And while we're on the subject of image receptor size
- don't forget that depth-of-field is inversely
related to actual aperture and NOT relative aperture
(f-number).  What this means, regardless of whether
the receptor is film or digital, is that larger
receptor cameras have lesser depth-of-field and
smaller ones have greater depth-of-field at a given
f-number. Tilts and swings on view cameras can only
compensate for a portion of this loss in some
situations.

So, for example, a 'normal' lens for an 8x10" camera
is about 300mm whereas for the 6x7cm about 100mm.(As
I'm sure you all know the focal length of a  "normal"
lens is roughly the diagonal (hypotenuse) of the
receptor size.)  So you lose roughly about 3 stops of
'speed' with the 8x10 for the same depth-of-field
relative to the 6x7cm and even more relative to
'normal' 50mm for a 35mm film or "full field" digital
camera.

Conversely smaller than "full field" digital receptors
have a grater depth-of-field at a given f-number.

I usually like sharpness  - but sometimes I just want
depth-of-field and grainlessness - sort of large
format pin-hole effect. Stopped down digital on less
than full-field receptor mimics this effect to some
degree. Pinhole's typically have f-numbers of about
300 and have near infinite depth-of-field but
diffusion unsharpness throughout.

For my 8x10 I have an APO lens that is sharp as a tack
and most often this was the lens I used - but i also
have an uncoated variable soft-focus turn-of-the
century Velostigmat that, even though it looks like it
has been used as a doorstop, took and takes very
pleasing portraits.  It's all in how you want the
image to look and the feeling you want to convey. It's
NOT just about mega-pixels, or grain, or in-plane
sharpness, or whatever.

Respectfully,
Michael Vendrell 


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

Michael,

I'm a young 64 11/12 and have no problem hiking with my 4x5 or 8x10 field
outfits in a backpack, if I wanted to, and I could use the digital gear too
for other situations.  It is like the epiphany I had years ago when a waiter
asked what salad dressing I wanted - I realized that I could have more than
one.  However, there are always practical considerations to factor.  My
professional and other interests leave not a large amount of time for b&w
photography, my passion.  For amateurs like me, the DSLR is a Godsend, along
with inkjet printing.  I can accept the compromises in image quality (which
I see as not that great, actually, if you have good gear - the overall image
is still the thing), and the higher technology cost, because it allows me to
pursue my hobby.  The clincher, to which you refer: I could be down at the
bar with friends instead of changing out sheet film in my hotel room.

Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of Michael Vendrell
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 6:46 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Great Photographic Artists [was 
> Scanning 35mm vs digital camera)

> I'm a fairly young 54&11/12 and could, if I wanted to, use 
> the 8x10, but just can't seem to get up the enthusiasm for 
> lugging it and tripod around anymore - not to mention loading 
> the holders and developing the sheets one at a time.  And, as 
> Peter pointed out, view-camera on tripod does confine one to 
> certain types of subjects and situations for which I've "paid 
> my dues" but my interests lie mainly elsewhere now.

Hey all

Wondering if anyone has had the opportunity to use the new Lexjet Ultrasmooth Cotton or the new Ultrasmooth Gloss papers? I just recently received some 8X10 samples which i have found empirically to be of great value! I have no idea of longevity et al but I really like the prints I have made so far. The gloss is very like what I have been hearing about the Crane Silver Rag and the Ultrasmooth should I think be competing with HPR 308. I would love to see what others whose opinions I respect have to say about their own opinions of these papers. I sense that Lexjet have hired some of both Hahnemuhle and Innova engineers and are making a run at this market.

Look forward to hearing from you

Woody Spedden

----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 6:49:48 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Great Photographic Artists [was  Scanning 35mm vs digital camera)

   
 Peter et al, Your list is so close to mine as to send
 chills down my spine.  If I had to narrow it down to
 two heroes it would be Andre Kertesz and Edward Weston
 - in no particular order.  Both used tools appropriate
 to their vision and sometimes  experimented.  One of
 Kertesz's last projects was with a Polaroid SX70. 
 Weston used a handheld Graflex SLR 4x5 for more
 spontaneous portraiture.
 
 Not to compare myself but only to "take a lesson" from
 the greats, I too have worked in 8x10 view, Medium
 Format, 35mm, and digital. Artists frequently work in
 "periods" such as Picasso's famous "blue" one.  I seem
 to get out of a "different side of the bed" about
 every decade. I started as a street shooter in 1969; 
 next worked mostly MF interiors, still-lifes, and
 portraits; then 8x10 interiors, still-lifes,
 portraits, and outdoor night work; now have come
 almost full circle, and am doing street and cafe
 shooting once again.  I've had occasion to think about
 all this as I sift through more than 30 years of
 negatives for scanning, Photo-shop work-up, and
 digital printing. And yes, almost all B&W to stay OT.
 
 For nostalgia I like working with former Soviet Leica
 and Contax copies.  But I must say that for actually
 acquiring images - digital is much better in virtually
 all technical aspects for candid street and cafe work.
  I just need to balance whether my nostalgic feelings
 (e.g imagining I'm Kertesz or Bresson) , or working
 with the tool they would have chosen if available to
 them at the time is more important.  I don't think
 there is much question that the Greats of
 photographing that-which=is-in-motion would have
 chosen digital if it had been available to them.  The
 biggest problem for me is what is frequently touted as
 digital's biggest advantage - immediate feedback. I
 agree with Nick Brandt that the processes of
 expectation (both realized and confounded), and chance
 have always been important for me.   Digital sometimes
 short-circuits this process too quickly.  It's 
 relatively easy for most of us to obtain (again) what
 we or others have already obtained - at least in terms
 of the technical, subject matte,r and overall visual
 intent .  What's hard is to develop ones vision in a
 new way. To learn to see anew. Chance and percolation
 time have been essential in this process for me- and I
 would imagine for many.
 
 If the question is: "Is digital state-of-the-art up to
 the task technically for hand-held work relative to
 35mm film"  - I believe most would agree there is no
 question about that in 2006. "Can digital  sometime in
 the near-future rival a contact print from an 8x10
 film negative (Weston's and my benchmark) and how near
 is it and how much will it cost" is a more open
 question and much more interesting for me.   As to how
 one best finds the tools and methods that work best
 for them in the evolution of their vision - that is
 something only personal experience (including
 listening and looking at the work of others) can
 answer.
 
 As an aside, while browsing Clayton's site I followed
 a link to the work of Nikolas Hartman.  His vision is
 incredible.  Check-out his site out if you haven't. 
 If you love Kertesz - I think you'll like his work. 
 He happens to work with 35mm RF's and BO printing. But
 that is, of course, just what works for him.
 
 Michael Vendrell  
 --- Peter Marshall <petermarshall@...> wrote:
 
 > I've used 8x10 and I have to say it was never a
 > match for 35mm for most 
 > of the things I wanted to do as a photographer. It
 > depends what you 
 > want. There isn't a single path. My vote for the
 > greatest photographer 
 > of the 20th century would quite probably go either
 > to Andre Kertesz or 
 > Robert Frank or Walker Evans depending which side of
 > the bed I got out 
 > of this morning. Never of course to Ansel, although
 > occasionally to 
 > Edward W. and more often to Bill Brandt.
 > 
 > Regards,
 > 
 > Peter Marshall
 > petermarshall@...     
 >
 _________________________________________________________________
 > 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......
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > cloudswimmer7774 wrote:
 > > Man I hear this all the time.Mostly at DPreview
 > dot comm.Is digital
 > > capture really now a match for 8x10 BW film in
 > fine art?I live on the
 > > Calif. coast and frequent quite a few galleries.I
 > have yet to see a
 > > digital captured BW image that drops my jaw like
 > Brett's stuff shot
 > > with his old Calumet C-1, or Ansels large 8x10
 > stuff.I'm not totally
 > > convinced these guys would be capturing with
 > digital.
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >   
 > >> It's worth something. Not a single one of the
 > photographers you
 > >> mentioned, if they were in the prime of their
 > career would NOT be
 > >> shooting digital capture, especially Ansel Adams.
 > He told us himself 
 > >> decades ago before he died that he wished it was
 > available to him
 > >> then. It wasn't. 
 > >>     
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > 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
 > 
 >
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
 > 
 >    
 >
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
 > 
 >  
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 
 
 __________________________________________________
 Do You Yahoo!?
 Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
 http://mail.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.
  

              

        SPONSORED LINKS   
                                                    Digital wedding photography                                       Learn digital photography                                       Digital photography college                                                                     Digital photography                                       Digital photography web site                                       Digital photography course                                                                 
         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]

Hello Michael,

>Peter, YES that's him and his web-site.  Clayton
>Jone's site also has a link to a two-Part interview
>with him.  

I just added a link to his web site on my page with the links to the
interview.  Should have thought of it before.  I too like his work and
especially the "raised hand" photo.  I also like "Italy - Gubbio, view
from Piazza Grande" and "Rome - Tiber Island".  Nice, very nice.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Woody, Lexjet called me last week promoting this new media they are
selling.They are just dying to get it out there. They told me it was
created by two guys who were the Hahnemuhle distributors in the US. I
said, oh, the Innova people, and he said, yea,how did you know. It's
Innova Smooth Cotton and the new Innova Fiba gloss I'm sure. 

What is interesting to me is how Hahnemuhle has come down on their
prices ( not Crane or Epson though) since Innova made this big splash.
Hahnemuhle is selling their papers, except for the newest ones, at
Innova prices now. Good deal. It's about time.

John


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, <elwood@...> wrote:
>
> Hey all
> 
> Wondering if anyone has had the opportunity to use the new Lexjet
Ultrasmooth Cotton or the new Ultrasmooth Gloss papers? I just
recently received some 8X10 samples which i have found empirically to
be of great value! I have no idea of longevity et al but I really like
the prints I have made so far. The gloss is very like what I have been
hearing about the Crane Silver Rag and the Ultrasmooth should I think
be competing with HPR 308. I would love to see what others whose
opinions I respect have to say about their own opinions of these
papers. I sense that Lexjet have hired some of both Hahnemuhle and
Innova engineers and are making a run at this market.
> 
> Look forward to hearing from you
> 
> Woody Spedden
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...>
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 6:49:48 AM
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Great Photographic Artists [was  Scanning
35mm vs digital camera)
> 
>    
>  Peter et al, Your list is so close to mine as to send
>  chills down my spine.  If I had to narrow it down to
>  two heroes it would be Andre Kertesz and Edward Weston
>  - in no particular order.  Both used tools appropriate
>  to their vision and sometimes  experimented.  One of
>  Kertesz's last projects was with a Polaroid SX70. 
>  Weston used a handheld Graflex SLR 4x5 for more
>  spontaneous portraiture.
>  
>  Not to compare myself but only to "take a lesson" from
>  the greats, I too have worked in 8x10 view, Medium
>  Format, 35mm, and digital. Artists frequently work in
>  "periods" such as Picasso's famous "blue" one.  I seem
>  to get out of a "different side of the bed" about
>  every decade. I started as a street shooter in 1969; 
>  next worked mostly MF interiors, still-lifes, and
>  portraits; then 8x10 interiors, still-lifes,
>  portraits, and outdoor night work; now have come
>  almost full circle, and am doing street and cafe
>  shooting once again.  I've had occasion to think about
>  all this as I sift through more than 30 years of
>  negatives for scanning, Photo-shop work-up, and
>  digital printing. And yes, almost all B&W to stay OT.
>  
>  For nostalgia I like working with former Soviet Leica
>  and Contax copies.  But I must say that for actually
>  acquiring images - digital is much better in virtually
>  all technical aspects for candid street and cafe work.
>   I just need to balance whether my nostalgic feelings
>  (e.g imagining I'm Kertesz or Bresson) , or working
>  with the tool they would have chosen if available to
>  them at the time is more important.  I don't think
>  there is much question that the Greats of
>  photographing that-which=is-in-motion would have
>  chosen digital if it had been available to them.  The
>  biggest problem for me is what is frequently touted as
>  digital's biggest advantage - immediate feedback. I
>  agree with Nick Brandt that the processes of
>  expectation (both realized and confounded), and chance
>  have always been important for me.   Digital sometimes
>  short-circuits this process too quickly.  It's 
>  relatively easy for most of us to obtain (again) what
>  we or others have already obtained - at least in terms
>  of the technical, subject matte,r and overall visual
>  intent .  What's hard is to develop ones vision in a
>  new way. To learn to see anew. Chance and percolation
>  time have been essential in this process for me- and I
>  would imagine for many.
>  
>  If the question is: "Is digital state-of-the-art up to
>  the task technically for hand-held work relative to
>  35mm film"  - I believe most would agree there is no
>  question about that in 2006. "Can digital  sometime in
>  the near-future rival a contact print from an 8x10
>  film negative (Weston's and my benchmark) and how near
>  is it and how much will it cost" is a more open
>  question and much more interesting for me.   As to how
>  one best finds the tools and methods that work best
>  for them in the evolution of their vision - that is
>  something only personal experience (including
>  listening and looking at the work of others) can
>  answer.
>  
>  As an aside, while browsing Clayton's site I followed
>  a link to the work of Nikolas Hartman.  His vision is
>  incredible.  Check-out his site out if you haven't. 
>  If you love Kertesz - I think you'll like his work. 
>  He happens to work with 35mm RF's and BO printing. But
>  that is, of course, just what works for him.
>  
>  Michael Vendrell  
>  --- Peter Marshall <petermarshall@...> wrote:
>  
>  > I've used 8x10 and I have to say it was never a
>  > match for 35mm for most 
>  > of the things I wanted to do as a photographer. It
>  > depends what you 
>  > want. There isn't a single path. My vote for the
>  > greatest photographer 
>  > of the 20th century would quite probably go either
>  > to Andre Kertesz or 
>  > Robert Frank or Walker Evans depending which side of
>  > the bed I got out 
>  > of this morning. Never of course to Ansel, although
>  > occasionally to 
>  > Edward W. and more often to Bill Brandt.
>  > 
>  > Regards,
>  > 
>  > Peter Marshall
>  > petermarshall@...     
>  >
>  _________________________________________________________________
>  > 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......
>  > 
>  > 
>  > 
>  > cloudswimmer7774 wrote:
>  > > Man I hear this all the time.Mostly at DPreview
>  > dot comm.Is digital
>  > > capture really now a match for 8x10 BW film in
>  > fine art?I live on the
>  > > Calif. coast and frequent quite a few galleries.I
>  > have yet to see a
>  > > digital captured BW image that drops my jaw like
>  > Brett's stuff shot
>  > > with his old Calumet C-1, or Ansels large 8x10
>  > stuff.I'm not totally
>  > > convinced these guys would be capturing with
>  > digital.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >   
>  > >> It's worth something. Not a single one of the
>  > photographers you
>  > >> mentioned, if they were in the prime of their
>  > career would NOT be
>  > >> shooting digital capture, especially Ansel Adams.
>  > He told us himself 
>  > >> decades ago before he died that he wished it was
>  > available to him
>  > >> then. It wasn't. 
>  > >>     
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > 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
>  > 
>  >
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>  > 
>  >    
>  >
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  > 
>  >  
>  > 
>  > 
>  > 
>  > 
>  
>  
>  __________________________________________________
>  Do You Yahoo!?
>  Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>  http://mail.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.
>   
> 
>               
> 
>         SPONSORED LINKS   
>                                                     Digital wedding
photography                                       Learn digital
photography                                       Digital photography
college                                                              
      Digital photography                                      
Digital photography web site                                      
Digital photography course                                           
                     
>          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]
>

And Shades Of Paper is going to be selling the Innova Fiba Gloss in
about a week. It is already been produced for sales and is about to be
shipped.It has a slightly smoother surface than the Crane Silver Rag
but is alpha cellulose, not 100% rag. I haven't tried it yet but look
forward to it.

john

Hello Michael,

>working with view cameras especially 8x10" and larger
>- and to a lesser extent waist level ground glass
>finders on MF - certainly influenced my vision and I
>would expect many from this tradition have had similar
>experience...So the basic design of the cameras and not just the
>recording media have an effect on ones vision.  

Yes, can say the same here - worked with 35mm through 4x5, including
6x6 TLR which I always liked using.  Each one has it's own effect on
viewing.



>As the view-screens on digital cameras get larger
>there is some crossover with this 'viewing tradition'
>...I'm a fairly young 54&11/12 and could, if I wanted to,
>use the 8x10, but just can't seem to get up the
>enthusiasm for lugging it and tripod around anymore -

I'm currently using an 8mp Canon Pro-1.  I do mostly tripod work and
use its tilt-swivel screen like a miniature view camera (with a velcro
strap-on shade for bright outdoor work).  It isn't upside down, but it
does promote slower careful work.  I'm 59+ and have accumulated some
back problems which make it difficult to bend over to look through a
viewfinder when the tripod is in some odd position, which it often is.
 This new arrangement is easy on my back in two ways - being very
light weight as well.



>I wish my present digital camera (Olympus 8mp SP-350) would allow 
>viewing in B&W.  

The Pro-1 has a BW mode, and its RAW files retain the color data (have
you checked to see if the SP-350 RAW does this?).  So you can compose
in BW, then restore the color during RAW conversion and have full
color2bw control later in PS.  I like composing in BW - it definitely
affects the viewing.  The combination of the swivel screen in "view
camera mode" and BW composing has been wonderful and is a completely
new and exciting dimension in photography.  It's completely different
and, unsurprisingly, is triggering a different kind of creativity.

In combination with digital printing, especially now with the 2400
adding to the BO printing, it has given me a whole new photographic
life.  Truly an amazing time for photographers.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Oh?
 I was unaware I could do BO with my 2400.
 Could you elaborate, please, Clayton?
Best Regards
Ginny

> In combination with digital printing, especially now with the 2400
> adding to the BO printing, it has given me a whole new photographic
> life.  Truly an amazing time for photographers.
>

Dear Michael,

 The 6X7 is my camera of choice, too. I also scan in a 9000.
I happen to love TX-400! I always used to think TX was a 'grainy'
film. I would shoot using Kodak's ASA of 400 and develop as they
recommended. (7.5 minutes in HC-110 B dilution) Results were, in fact,
grainy. I then read Fred Picker's book, The Zone VI Workshop, did my
own film speed tests for zone 1 followed by development time tests for
zone VIII. Viola!! ASA-300 with my equipment and development time of
only 4-1/2 minutes!!! About 40% less than the 7.5 minutes Kodak
advises!! The results were gorgeous...fine grain, with rich, dramatic
tones.
 More recently I've tried TX with XTOL 1:1. Tests have me rating it at
700(!) and developing for 6 minutes and 50 secs...well below the time
Kodak advises. Again, my results have been surprisingly lovely. XTOL
produces a less 'dramatic' image than HC-110, but lends an almost
luminous quality...with better, more subtle tonal separations. (And
with all the Vitamin C in XTOL plus selenium toning, my pictures are
so 'healthy' they should live forever!! <G>)

 Best Regards
 Ginny

> As far as image quality is concerned, I'm very happy
> with Pentax 6 x 7 cm negs on slow film such as TP and
> Agfapan 25 scanned with a Nikon 9000 and digitally
> printed.  Now that TP and Agfapan 25 are no more, I've
> begun to experiment with ADOX and a few others
> available from J & C and Freestyle.  If any of you are
> ahead of me on this, I would be very interested as I
> have only so much time to devote to such things.
> 
> Respectfully,
>  
> Michael Vendrell 
> 
> --- Clayton Price <clay@...> wrote:
> 
> > Hello All -
> > Now these are the kinds of discussions that I find
> > personally, most 
> > interesting. After all, one can only go so far with
> > technical 
> > discussion (as important as that is), before you
> > have to look at the 
> > photograph itself - the emotional content, subject,
> > light - all that 
> > and more that creates the impact of how we see and
> > translate to the 
> > printed image. When all is said and done, the method
> > - digital, film, 
> > format doesn't matter if the photo is boring.  This
> > is something I try 
> > to think about whenever
> > I plan, shoot, and especially when editing. And
> > since I teach as an 
> > adjunct, variations of this is what I try to impress
> > upon students.
> > 
> > Since Michael and Peter were talking about large
> > format, I'm wondering 
> > how many of you had similar experience to this:  As
> > a student, we were 
> > all required
> > to own and shoot only with 4X5 or 8X10 camera.  I
> > always enjoyed doing 
> > so, and only realized many years later, how that
> > "forced" slow down of 
> > composing [upside down :-)] had such a strong impact
> > on my entire 
> > career, even as I became a working photojournalist
> > by my senior year in 
> > college -- of course working only
> > in 35 mm.  What I learned from large format, was how
> > to compose a 
> > photograph, and working in fast moving journalistic
> > situations, at 
> > least for me, enabled
> > me to get a pretty high percentage of interesting
> > and/or unusual 
> > compositions to my work. I'd like to say developed a
> > style, but 
> > hesitate, because I'm not sure, even after so many
> > years, that I have 
> > that!  But I do feel that the large format 
> > discipline was invaluable.
> > 
> > And yes - Kertesz, Frank and Weston, among others
> > are my all time 
> > favorites along with John Heartfield (for his
> > content).
> > 
> > Now 40 years later, I find myself shooting a lot of
> > material on 6X9 (as 
> > large a format as I care to carry around to
> > locations). So that means 
> > scanning and
> > printing with MK7 inks on a 2200. My darkroom seems
> > to have disappeared 
> > about 3 years ago.
> > 
> > What experiences others have about all this?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Clay Price
> > 
> > Michael Vendrell wrote:
> > >   ... As to how
> > > one best finds the tools and methods that work
> > best
> > > for them in the evolution of their vision - that
> > is
> > > something only personal experience (including
> > > listening and looking at the work of others) can
> > > answer....
> > > and Peter Marshall wrote:
> > >> I've used 8x10 and I have to say it was never a
> > >> match for 35mm for most
> > >> of the things I wanted to do as a photographer.
> > It
> > >> depends what you
> > >> want. There isn't a single path. My vote for the
> > >> greatest photographer
> > >> of the 20th century would quite probably go
> > either
> > >> to Andre Kertesz or
> > >> Robert Frank or Walker Evans depending which side
> > of
> > >> the bed I got out
> > >> of this morning. 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ginnylady33" 
<ginnylady33@...> wrote:
>
> Oh?
>  I was unaware I could do BO with my 2400.
>  Could you elaborate, please, Clayton?
> Best Regards
> Ginny
> 
> > In combination with digital printing, especially now with the 2400
> > adding to the BO printing, it has given me a whole new 
photographic
> > life.  Truly an amazing time for photographers.
> >
>

I' m interested too. 
I'm currently doing BW print with iQuads/QTR/1290/Pulse. The profiled 
output is satisfying, but the printer gives me headache and I dislike 
it.

I tried on a MK loaded 4800 to test BO (e.g. the use of only 
K,LK,LLK, all other inks not being fired). Initially my purpose is to 
see if K3 PK could be a valid glossy option (bronzing and gloss 
differential set aside at the time being). I'm expecting a print made 
like this to evaluate it.

I would say that the hue of the 3 greys is pretty significant, though 
not disturbing to my taste, but also not even from hilghlights to 
sahdows. It can reach on EEM up to a*2 and b*4. Dmax can reach 1.73 
on EEM and very slighly lower on HPR, that is close to what I get 
with piezotone Museum K WN ink set.

Where I've been really annoyed is at linearizing the greyscale. I get 
perfect linear greyscale with piezotone with very even steps on a 
21stepwedge. When it comes to K3 BO I just can not get a linear 
output. Should my own competence be reasonnably questionable, the 
thing is that I'm doing exactly the same with piezotones and K3. 

It's my understanding K3 MK is the formulation of the previous 
generation, while the new one resin-coats the pigments. Does this 
affect, I can't say. Are 3 dilutions not sufficient, I can't either 
say, but doubt this is a valid reason. I found LK and LLK to be 
respectively about 20% and 10% (depending on EEM and HPR) relative 
density of MK. So MK starts firing pretty early : the darkest part of 
the greyscale is where you have the most uneven linearization, but in 
midtones you do experience the same (probably when K is becoming in 
use).

I'll be re-doing my measurements for the sake of double-checking. 
I'll try also to increase overlap to output more lighter ink to a 
partition and eventually increase "shadows" to have MK fired the 
latest possible though I'm unsure of the actual effect on the 
linearisation.

I'd be happy to have more experienced people feedback and eventually 
advises on better partitioning with QTR.

Olivier
France

Hello Ginny,

>I was unaware I could do BO with my 2400.
>Could you elaborate, please, Clayton?

Sorry I wasn't clear.  It should have been "...especially now with the
2400 adding to the BO printing on my R200..."


>>In combination with digital printing, especially now with the 2400
>>adding to the BO printing, it has given me a whole new photographic
>>life.  Truly an amazing time for photographers.


Regards,
Clayton


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

>  ... XTOL produces a less 'dramatic' image than HC-110, 
> but lends an almost luminous quality...with better, 
> more subtle tonal separations.

When I run out of medium format Tech Pan, Tmax 100 with Xtol will probably
be my choice.  Xtol has the least amount of adjacency I've seen in a
developer.  So, it produces very smooth grain.  I would have considered it
too soft for the enlarger, but with a good scanner and unsharp masking in
Photoshop, I now think low grain is more important than chemically-sharpened
film.

> (And with all the Vitamin C in XTOL plus selenium toning, my pictures are
> so 'healthy' they should live forever!! <G>)

The city sewer police saw my darkroom in house plans and were very concerned
about the health of their sewer system.  Oddly, Microdol X was at the top of
their list of bads.  Xtol was formulated, apparently, in part to avoid these
problems.  The health of the sewer systems is one of its main points.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,Ginny, et al: I'm planning on giving the dr5
reversal processing a try for some selected B&W films
as well.  There's a rather extensive list of films
with their characteristics on his site which makes for
impressive reading but I don't as yet have direct
experience - anyone?  I know it has been discussed
before, but does anyone have further thoughts about
scanning B&W film positives vs negatives in a scanner
such as the Nikon 9000?

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

> >  ... XTOL produces a less 'dramatic' image than
> HC-110, 
> > but lends an almost luminous quality...with
> better, 
> > more subtle tonal separations.
> 
> When I run out of medium format Tech Pan, Tmax 100
> with Xtol will probably
> be my choice.  Xtol has the least amount of
> adjacency I've seen in a
> developer.  So, it produces very smooth grain.  I
> would have considered it
> too soft for the enlarger, but with a good scanner
> and unsharp masking in
> Photoshop, I now think low grain is more important
> than chemically-sharpened
> film.
> 
> > (And with all the Vitamin C in XTOL plus selenium
> toning, my pictures are
> > so 'healthy' they should live forever!! <G>)
> 
> The city sewer police saw my darkroom in house plans
> and were very concerned
> about the health of their sewer system.  Oddly,
> Microdol X was at the top of
> their list of bads.  Xtol was formulated,
> apparently, in part to avoid these
> problems.  The health of the sewer systems is one of
> its main points.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> 


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

Paul,

There was some talk he a while back about Pyro developers.

Have you tried any? 

Was wondering if you have scanned any Pyro "stained" negs and what the 
results were.

Scott

> There was some talk he a while back about Pyro developers.
> 
> Have you tried any?
> 
> Was wondering if you have scanned any Pyro "stained" negs and what the
> results were.
> 

I have not had a chance to try it.  The concept is fascinating, however.  It
appears different "recipes" of Pyro produce different results.  I got
distracted before I could conclude which one would have the least grain.
Reviews of a few of the processes seemed to indicate the results actually
had more grain.  There also seemed to be a question as to whether the newer
type films ("T" grain for example) were suitable candidates.  When it comes
to grain reduction, I'm not sure I want to go back to an older technology.
So, basically, the project was put on the back burner.  It'll be moved up as
my Tech Pan stash disappears.  Frankly, I'm hoping an affordable, 32 mp,
wide latitude digital camera is out by then, but I'm not holding my breath
on that front.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
> The city sewer police saw my darkroom in house plans and were very 
concerned
> about the health of their sewer system.  Oddly, Microdol X was at the 
top of
> their list of bads.  Xtol was formulated, apparently, in part to 
avoid these
> problems.  The health of the sewer systems is one of its main points.
> 


At work there is a huge waste treatment processor for the photo lab. 
Two (about) 500 gallon containers, one control panel, one air 
compressor, 55 gallon drum of sulfuric acid (and no silver 
recovery???). Apparently they need to keep the discharge at around a pH 
of 7 (and whatever else the machines do).

Hi Clayton,
Yes, I'm still using the Multipro, but some of my negs are too big, it 
won't do 6x12.

So I'm waiting for the Epson V750 which is due in May. I don't think 
Epson have let any of these out yet, but it is an improved version of 
the V700. You can read a very detailed test of this by Vincent Oliver on 
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_1.htm

I knew Vincent in the 1970s when we he ran a small group of 
photographers called Group Six. He is very thorough in the tests, 
although I wish he would do a few more things, such as using Vuescan 
software.

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......



Clayton Price wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> I recall (probably from another forum) that you are scanning on the 
> Minolta Multipro (didn't you send me Eric's name at Scanhancer?)
> I'm still using and liking that scanner, a lot, but now that they have 
> discontinued it, the time will come when I'll have to look elsewhere.
> What has your research shown in replacements of similar or better 
> quality, comparative prices?  Some folks are talking a about a new
> Epson scanner that's about to be released.  Any one been beta testing 
> it?
>
> Best,
>
> Clay Price
>
>
> On Mar 26, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Peter Marshall wrote:
>   
>> ....A few months ago I was advising people that unless they could 
>> spend very
>> large amounts of money on a scanner, they should buy a dedicated film
>> scanner - such as the Minolta Multipro that I'm still using. Now my
>> advice is almost certainly changing to reflect advances in scanner
>> technology.
>>     
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>

Brief comments on processing B&W film for scanning.

I've been trying various methods to optimise B&W film development for
scanning and digital post-processing over the past few years. I've
looked at grain pattern, acutance (or lack of it), density range and
the effect of staining developers. The idea was to get a good match
between the density range of the film original and the capabilities of
the scanner. The fact that it is a match between film and scanner
implies that different scanners will require different characteristics
in the original for optimum match. I've been doing my trials with the
Polaroid 4000, Nikon 4000, Nikon 8000, Nikon 5000, Nikon 9000 and
lately the Imacon 949. 
 
Reversal processing seemed to offer one good solution. I started
extensive tests with dr5, but David 'Doctor' Wood keeps getting upset
with my views on dr5 and just about everything else in the world, and
has attempted legal proceedings against me, so I'm going to keep
clear, apart from saying that dr5 is an excellent process with no
commercial equal that I am aware of. I honestly recommend that
everyone should try dr5 at least once.

The attraction of reversal processing is that you can get a large
density range without the high graininess that would occur if you
developed a neg to the same DR. However, the D-max can be too high. If
you do your own processing you can control D-max. If you are
developing for scanning rather than projection, image colour isn't a
problem, so your choice of second developers is wide.

With staining developers I found some grain masking effect, if scanned
in RGB followed by channel mixing, but the high acutance/sharpness
seems to work against the low graininess. It all depends on what you
want. Overall, I preferred XTOL or Perceptol 1+3 for scanning, aiming
for low graininess and low sharpness, with sharpness being recovered
later by USM or whatever. 

Comparing graininess in a truly objective and useful way is not easy,
of course. 

Best,
Helen

Michael, 

I have tried the DR5 process and love it.  I shoot 6x7 and scan using a Microtek Artixscan 
120f.  I find that the DR5 scans have more latitute, more detail, and less grain.  Also you 
don't have to invert which is great as you save another altering step.  I swear by it, but I 
would say that you have to like the look.  I happen to love the look of tmax100 with dr5.  
It helps control those highlights that are so hard to control with tmax100.  It is extremely 
easy to scan.  I have also used it with efke 25 film and find that it is nice as well.  Although 
I have no comparison to compare the efke 25 with since i only have used it with dr5.  The 
tmax i have used for years developed the traditional way so I can say from exprience that 
for me I prefer tmax 100 in dr5 than in any other process I have tried.  I shoot landscape 
photography on a tripod so you will know where i am coming from.  It is expensive 
however costing about $13 dollars a roll.  For me though, the results it gives you are 
worth it.  

My thoughts,

Josh Randall

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Vendrell 
<mjvendrell2@...> wrote:

>
> Paul,Ginny, et al: I'm planning on giving the dr5
> reversal processing a try for some selected B&W films
> as well.  There's a rather extensive list of films
> with their characteristics on his site which makes for
> impressive reading but I don't as yet have direct
> experience - anyone?  I know it has been discussed
> before, but does anyone have further thoughts about
> scanning B&W film positives vs negatives in a scanner
> such as the Nikon 9000?
> 
> --- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> 
> > >  ... XTOL produces a less 'dramatic' image than
> > HC-110, 
> > > but lends an almost luminous quality...with
> > better, 
> > > more subtle tonal separations.
> > 
> > When I run out of medium format Tech Pan, Tmax 100
> > with Xtol will probably
> > be my choice.  Xtol has the least amount of
> > adjacency I've seen in a
> > developer.  So, it produces very smooth grain.  I
> > would have considered it
> > too soft for the enlarger, but with a good scanner
> > and unsharp masking in
> > Photoshop, I now think low grain is more important
> > than chemically-sharpened
> > film.
> > 
> > > (And with all the Vitamin C in XTOL plus selenium
> > toning, my pictures are
> > > so 'healthy' they should live forever!! <G>)
> > 
> > The city sewer police saw my darkroom in house plans
> > and were very concerned
> > about the health of their sewer system.  Oddly,
> > Microdol X was at the top of
> > their list of bads.  Xtol was formulated,
> > apparently, in part to avoid these
> > problems.  The health of the sewer systems is one of
> > its main points.
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

No disrespect but have you seen James Nachwey's work? I think he takes the prize for 35mm type photography.

Art

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Marshall <petermarshall@...>
Date: Saturday, March 25, 2006 2:40 pm

Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera

> I've used 8x10 and I have to say it was never a match for 35mm for 
> most 
> of the things I wanted to do as a photographer. It depends what 
> you 
> want. There isn't a single path. My vote for the greatest 
> photographer 
> of the 20th century would quite probably go either to Andre 
> Kertesz or 
> Robert Frank or Walker Evans depending which side of the bed I got 
> out 
> of this morning. Never of course to Ansel, although occasionally 
> to 
> Edward W. and more often to Bill Brandt.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter Marshall
> petermarshall@...     
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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......
> 
> 
> 
> cloudswimmer7774 wrote:
> > Man I hear this all the time.Mostly at DPreview dot comm.Is digital
> > capture really now a match for 8x10 BW film in fine art?I live 
> on the
> > Calif. coast and frequent quite a few galleries.I have yet to 
> see a
> > digital captured BW image that drops my jaw like Brett's stuff shot
> > with his old Calumet C-1, or Ansels large 8x10 stuff.I'm not totally
> > convinced these guys would be capturing with digital.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> >> It's worth something. Not a single one of the photographers you
> >> mentioned, if they were in the prime of their career would NOT be
> >> shooting digital capture, especially Ansel Adams. He told us 
> himself 
> >> decades ago before he died that he wished it was available to him
> >> then. It wasn't. 
> >>     
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Does it matter if it is the warm or neutral process?

--- joshscapes <joshrandall@...> wrote:

> Michael, 
> 
> I have tried the DR5 process and love it.  I shoot
> 6x7 and scan using a Microtek Artixscan 
> 120f.  I find that the DR5 scans have more latitute,
> more detail, and less grain.  Also you 
> don't have to invert which is great as you save
> another altering step.  I swear by it, but I 
> would say that you have to like the look.  I happen
> to love the look of tmax100 with dr5.  
> It helps control those highlights that are so hard
> to control with tmax100.  It is extremely 
> easy to scan.  I have also used it with efke 25 film
> and find that it is nice as well.  Although 
> I have no comparison to compare the efke 25 with
> since i only have used it with dr5.  The 
> tmax i have used for years developed the traditional
> way so I can say from exprience that 
> for me I prefer tmax 100 in dr5 than in any other
> process I have tried.  I shoot landscape 
> photography on a tripod so you will know where i am
> coming from.  It is expensive 
> however costing about $13 dollars a roll.  For me
> though, the results it gives you are 
> worth it.  
> 
> My thoughts,
> 
> Josh Randall
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> Michael Vendrell 
> <mjvendrell2@...> wrote:
> >
> > Paul,Ginny, et al: I'm planning on giving the dr5
> > reversal processing a try for some selected B&W
> films
> > as well.  There's a rather extensive list of films
> > with their characteristics on his site which makes
> for
> > impressive reading but I don't as yet have direct
> > experience - anyone?  I know it has been discussed
> > before, but does anyone have further thoughts
> about
> > scanning B&W film positives vs negatives in a
> scanner
> > such as the Nikon 9000?
> > 
> > --- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > >  ... XTOL produces a less 'dramatic' image
> than
> > > HC-110, 
> > > > but lends an almost luminous quality...with
> > > better, 
> > > > more subtle tonal separations.
> > > 
> > > When I run out of medium format Tech Pan, Tmax
> 100
> > > with Xtol will probably
> > > be my choice.  Xtol has the least amount of
> > > adjacency I've seen in a
> > > developer.  So, it produces very smooth grain. 
> I
> > > would have considered it
> > > too soft for the enlarger, but with a good
> scanner
> > > and unsharp masking in
> > > Photoshop, I now think low grain is more
> important
> > > than chemically-sharpened
> > > film.
> > > 
> > > > (And with all the Vitamin C in XTOL plus
> selenium
> > > toning, my pictures are
> > > > so 'healthy' they should live forever!! <G>)
> > > 
> > > The city sewer police saw my darkroom in house
> plans
> > > and were very concerned
> > > about the health of their sewer system.  Oddly,
> > > Microdol X was at the top of
> > > their list of bads.  Xtol was formulated,
> > > apparently, in part to avoid these
> > > problems.  The health of the sewer systems is
> one of
> > > its main points.
> > > 
> > > Paul
> > > www.PaulRoark.com 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Vendrell
<mjvendrell2@...> wrote:
>
> Does it matter if it is the warm or neutral process?

From my tests the sepia process appears to have a very slight edge in
terms of lower graininess and higher sharpness, but haven't seen a
significant difference or sent enough films through each process to
make a general recommendation. I used 320TXP for that particular
comparison. I'd recommend talking to David Wood. He is a very helpful guy.

Best,
Helen

Scott:

I scan 120 and 6x12 pyro developed negs mostly HP 5+ but also Macophot
and Konica infrared on my Epson 4990 scanner with good results. Use
SilverFast as the program and drop them into Photoshop for further
work.   Printed a lot at 30 and 36 inches, black ink only on the
2000P, which exhibited well to my surprise.  

Having problems getting the 2000P to use the MIS inks right now as I'm
just starting on this...frustrating enough that I scanned some 6x12
color slides from Antarctica last night and made some good color prints!

Dave



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
"scott_now_coming" <scott_now_coming@...> wrote:

>
> Paul,
> 
> There was some talk he a while back about Pyro developers.
> 
> Have you tried any? 
> 
> Was wondering if you have scanned any Pyro "stained" negs and what the 
> results were.
> 
> Scott
>

I have not tried the sepia tone (warm) and have only tried the 
neutral because I figured if I wanted sepia tone I could do it 
myself in photoshop.  You get me thinking however as the warm might 
give a variance in grain, acutance..ect.  I would doubt by much but 
it is worth checking into.  You know DR5 gives a discount for 
testing a few rolls.  Maybe it would be good to test a couple in 
neutral and a couple in warm and see what you like.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael 
Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...> wrote:

>
> Does it matter if it is the warm or neutral process?
> 
> --- joshscapes <joshrandall@...> wrote:
> 
> > Michael, 
> > 
> > I have tried the DR5 process and love it.  I shoot
> > 6x7 and scan using a Microtek Artixscan 
> > 120f.  I find that the DR5 scans have more latitute,
> > more detail, and less grain.  Also you 
> > don't have to invert which is great as you save
> > another altering step.  I swear by it, but I 
> > would say that you have to like the look.  I happen
> > to love the look of tmax100 with dr5.  
> > It helps control those highlights that are so hard
> > to control with tmax100.  It is extremely 
> > easy to scan.  I have also used it with efke 25 film
> > and find that it is nice as well.  Although 
> > I have no comparison to compare the efke 25 with
> > since i only have used it with dr5.  The 
> > tmax i have used for years developed the traditional
> > way so I can say from exprience that 
> > for me I prefer tmax 100 in dr5 than in any other
> > process I have tried.  I shoot landscape 
> > photography on a tripod so you will know where i am
> > coming from.  It is expensive 
> > however costing about $13 dollars a roll.  For me
> > though, the results it gives you are 
> > worth it.  
> > 
> > My thoughts,
> > 
> > Josh Randall
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> > Michael Vendrell 
> > <mjvendrell2@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul,Ginny, et al: I'm planning on giving the dr5
> > > reversal processing a try for some selected B&W
> > films
> > > as well.  There's a rather extensive list of films
> > > with their characteristics on his site which makes
> > for
> > > impressive reading but I don't as yet have direct
> > > experience - anyone?  I know it has been discussed
> > > before, but does anyone have further thoughts
> > about
> > > scanning B&W film positives vs negatives in a
> > scanner
> > > such as the Nikon 9000?
> > > 
> > > --- Paul Roark <paul.roark@> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > >  ... XTOL produces a less 'dramatic' image
> > than
> > > > HC-110, 
> > > > > but lends an almost luminous quality...with
> > > > better, 
> > > > > more subtle tonal separations.
> > > > 
> > > > When I run out of medium format Tech Pan, Tmax
> > 100
> > > > with Xtol will probably
> > > > be my choice.  Xtol has the least amount of
> > > > adjacency I've seen in a
> > > > developer.  So, it produces very smooth grain. 
> > I
> > > > would have considered it
> > > > too soft for the enlarger, but with a good
> > scanner
> > > > and unsharp masking in
> > > > Photoshop, I now think low grain is more
> > important
> > > > than chemically-sharpened
> > > > film.
> > > > 
> > > > > (And with all the Vitamin C in XTOL plus
> > selenium
> > > > toning, my pictures are
> > > > > so 'healthy' they should live forever!! <G>)
> > > > 
> > > > The city sewer police saw my darkroom in house
> > plans
> > > > and were very concerned
> > > > about the health of their sewer system.  Oddly,
> > > > Microdol X was at the top of
> > > > their list of bads.  Xtol was formulated,
> > > > apparently, in part to avoid these
> > > > problems.  The health of the sewer systems is
> > one of
> > > > its main points.
> > > > 
> > > > Paul
> > > > www.PaulRoark.com 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around 
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

Thanks Dave.

Scott


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David H. 
Miller" <daveinmoscow@...> wrote:
>
> Scott:
> 
> I scan 120 and 6x12 pyro developed negs mostly HP 5+ but also 
Macophot
> and Konica infrared on my Epson 4990 scanner with good results. Use
> SilverFast as the program and drop them into Photoshop for further
> work.   Printed a lot at 30 and 36 inches, black ink only on the
> 2000P, which exhibited well to my surprise.  
> 
> Having problems getting the 2000P to use the MIS inks right now as 
I'm
> just starting on this...frustrating enough that I scanned some 6x12
> color slides from Antarctica last night and made some good color 
prints!

> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> >
>

Helen Bach wrote:

> I've been doing my trials with the
> Polaroid 4000, Nikon 4000, Nikon 8000, Nikon 5000, Nikon 9000 and
> lately the Imacon 949. 

Helen,

the Polaroid 4000 may be the only one with a fluorescent tube 
light source, the other ones all have more or less a point 
light source I think. Is that correct ? And did you see a 
different result with the Polaroid ?

Ernst


                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Ernst,

The Polaroid was the first decent film scanner I bought (in 1999, I
think). I have found it to be a very good scanner for B&W negs, and
the graininess with silver-image B&W does seem to be a little lower
than that produced by the Nikons. It is the only one of the bunch that
I bought Silverfast for. I've found that I can rarely improve on the
B&W scans I did with the Polaroid by using the Nikon 5000 for example.
Maybe that just means that I've learned nothing in seven years.

Best,
Helen 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<E.Dinkla@...> wrote:

>
> Helen Bach wrote:
> 
> > I've been doing my trials with the
> > Polaroid 4000, Nikon 4000, Nikon 8000, Nikon 5000, Nikon 9000 and
> > lately the Imacon 949. 
> 
> Helen,
> 
> the Polaroid 4000 may be the only one with a fluorescent tube 
> light source, the other ones all have more or less a point 
> light source I think. Is that correct ? And did you see a 
> different result with the Polaroid ?
> 
> Ernst
> 
> 
>                     --
>            Ernst Dinkla
> 
> 
> www.pigment-print.com
> (         unvollendet         )
>

I've been scanning b/w negatives for some years with various scanners 
and for the last few with a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. This has 
covered a pretty wide range of films and developers as I've been working 
with images from around 30 years. I've not had great problems with any 
of them, although I have found Vuescan to generally be better than the 
Minolta software. I've also normally used the Scanhancer plastic 
diffuser in recent years. So it might be worth trying Vuescan with other 
scanners.

My favourite black and white film for scanning is actually Ilford XP2, 
but were I to be wanting to use conventional silver negative films I'd 
be strongly tempted to look at reversal processing, possibly with the 
use of a sulphide developer to give a silver sulphide image which should 
be considerably more stable than a silver one. I'd also look for a film 
with a polyester rather than a triacetate base if longevity was important.

I'd be unhappy about having to send film to Denver for processing, and 
would prefer a process that I could buy and do myself, or published 
formulae that could be used. I have used some of the older reversal 
processes but only to create slides for lectures, which was considerably 
cheaper than using Scala and avoided the colours added to b/w by most 
colour transparency film.

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......



Michael Vendrell wrote:

> Paul,Ginny, et al: I'm planning on giving the dr5
> reversal processing a try for some selected B&W films
> as well.  There's a rather extensive list of films
> with their characteristics on his site which makes for
> impressive reading but I don't as yet have direct
> experience - anyone?  I know it has been discussed
> before, but does anyone have further thoughts about
> scanning B&W film positives vs negatives in a scanner
> such as the Nikon 9000?
>
> --- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
>   
>>>  ... XTOL produces a less 'dramatic' image than
>>>       
>> HC-110, 
>>     
>>> but lends an almost luminous quality...with
>>>       
>> be
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall
<petermarshall@...> wrote:
...
> My favourite black and white film for scanning is actually Ilford XP2, 

Me too, particularly for 120. Not sure how well the grainier shadows
on problem negs would look from 35mm to larger prints.
But the 120 I have done, people think it's 4x5.
One of it'as greatest features is it's amazing upper exposure
latitude. You can overexpose like crazy in high contrast scenes, and
it gets it all ithout blocking up. Then, it's easy to scan because
that density is dye, not hard silver grain.
In some ways it may be a nearly ideal B&W film for digital.
On the other hand, some people seem to hate it, there you go.
Tyler

I will third that. The Kodak CN film does well too. What I like about
it with the Howtek scanner is that it helps in the extreme highlights
which helps with these drum scanners that do a better job with shadow
detail. The shadows don't have the interent contrast of textural
detail that the better Tri-X or TMax type films have, but with cuves
in Photoshop we have so much more control of that then in the darkroom
era when I wouldn't use the CN at all except for portraits. All in all
they produce the smoothest result for medium and small formats. I like
to shoot it on the RZ67. They don't make it in 4x5 do they?

John



> ...
> > My favourite black and white film for scanning is actually Ilford
XP2, 

> 
> Me too, particularly for 120. Not sure how well the grainier shadows
> on problem negs would look from 35mm to larger prints.
> But the 120 I have done, people think it's 4x5.
> One of it'as greatest features is it's amazing upper exposure
> latitude. You can overexpose like crazy in high contrast scenes, and
> it gets it all ithout blocking up. Then, it's easy to scan because
> that density is dye, not hard silver grain.
> In some ways it may be a nearly ideal B&W film for digital.
> On the other hand, some people seem to hate it, there you go.
> Tyler
>

> > > My favourite black and white film for scanning is ... Ilford XP2,
...
> > Me too, particularly for 120. Not sure how well the grainier shadows
> > on problem negs would look from 35mm to larger prints.
...
> I will third that. The Kodak CN film does well too. 
...

Just to voice a contrary opinion, I've used T400CN for years in medium
format when I need a fast film, but it's about to be replaced.  In my Fuji
Zi, it's what has passed for a "snapshot" camera for me when I know I'll be
needing speed, like on family trips.  On the other hand, some of my best 16
x 20 landscapes have been done with it on these occasions.

That said, the 16 x 20 prints have taken an awful lot of work to deal with
grain in the skies, and the resolution is just barely sufficient for a
perfectly sharp 16 x 20 from medium format.

Now I mostly take my little Canon Rebel XT when I need a fast camera that
can barely do a 16 x 20.  The digital's lack of grain is the main plus for
the Canon.

Neither, of course, is close to mf Tech Pan on a tripod.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> 
wrote:
>
> I will third that. The Kodak CN film does well too. What I like about
> it with the Howtek scanner is that it helps in the extreme highlights
> which helps with these drum scanners that do a better job with shadow
> detail. The shadows don't have the interent contrast of textural
> detail that the better Tri-X or TMax type films have, but with cuves
> in Photoshop we have so much more control of that then in the darkroom
> era when I wouldn't use the CN at all except for portraits. All in all
> they produce the smoothest result for medium and small formats. I like
> to shoot it on the RZ67. They don't make it in 4x5 do they?
> 
> John
> 

Believe it or not, Ilford made it as large as 11x14 at one time. Not sure about 4x5 now, would 
have to check...
Beginning to sound like codgers, hard to believe this wasn't that long ago.
T

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> 
wrote:
>
> > > > My favourite black and white film for scanning is ... Ilford XP2,
> ...
> > > Me too, particularly for 120. Not sure how well the grainier shadows
> > > on problem negs would look from 35mm to larger prints.
> ...
> > I will third that. The Kodak CN film does well too. 
> ...
> 
> Just to voice a contrary opinion, I've used T400CN for years in medium
> format when I need a fast film...

I've never used the Kodak

> That said, the 16 x 20 prints have taken an awful lot of work to deal with
> grain in the skies
...
must be somewhat different, the Ilford definitely gets less grainy as tones get lighter, so 
skies are cream. 16x20s look great, so they must not be too similar.
Of course nothing would compete with 4x5 tech pan.
T

XP2 120 and 35mm only now. I know, I am a dealer. Fuji Acros is a  
very nice film also, not a C-41 film although.
Mark

On Mar 30, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Tyler Boley wrote:

> Believe it or not, Ilford made it as large as 11x14 at one time.  
> Not sure about 4x5 now, would
> have to check...

On 24.3.2006, at 22:44, Peter Marshall wrote:

> And with cheaper models such as the D50 or D70 under
> most.

Have you check the banding in dark areas?

Martin

I've never found banding in dark areas to be a practical problem with 
the D70 or the D200. What I do notice is the considerably better colour 
quality and sharpness in 15x10" prints from these files than I get in 
prints made using scans from film. Obviously there is also a 'smoother' 
look to them thanks to the lack of grain.

Banding in dark areas may exist, though it may depend on the software 
you use to 'develop' the raw files (other defects such as moire and 
various edge effects certainly do.) It is sometimes necessary to use 
software to reduce purple fringing with some lenses, (and also to remove 
distortion for some types of image.) But I've not had any problems in 
actual work using these cameras, or the D100. I've not actually used the 
D50, but results I've seen make me pretty sure the same is true of that 
camera.

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......



Martin Sluka wrote:

> On 24.3.2006, at 22:44, Peter Marshall wrote:
>
>   
>> And with cheaper models such as the D50 or D70 under
>> most.
>>     
>
> Have you check the banding in dark areas?
>
> Martin
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>

As been mentioned numerous times, digital dslr images obviously meet
or even exceed the best possible results from 35mm scanned images.
Maybe in B&W the results are not as compelling as with 35mm color 
where grain is considered a negative. With B&W, there is the
interesting aspect that grain plays, because for some, grain is an
intrinsic value/component of 35mm photography. Losing that with
digital "creaminess", it's obvious why some photographers prefer the
film image.

But when it comes to larger format B&W, the question really becomes
much more muddied. Can small format digital (24x36mm or 6x4.5 cm) meet
or exceed 2 1/4 or 4x5 film imagery where grain is considered a
negative quality? In this scenerio, pure resolving power of details is
paramount.

Michael Reichman has just published an interesting comparison of
diffraction effect on his
website--http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml

The significance here relates to the cost differential of larger
format one-shot digital back, compared with the 24x36 full frame
bodies of Canon and the  now discontinued Kodak slrn. It is my
contention that large format film results can be attained with these
smaller digital cameras using stitching techniques. This can be done
orienting the camera vertically & using a panorama jig, or using a
"technical" camera with a sliding back for multiple exposures using
the same nodal point of a larger coverage area lense.

In any event, there are interesting digital solutions/alternatives to
large format B&W film photography.

John Nollendorfs

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sinar001" <jnolly@...> wrote:

I hope this is not getting off topic, but just a few thoughts, with respect to John of 
course...

> As been mentioned numerous times, digital dslr images obviously meet
> or even exceed the best possible results from 35mm scanned images.
> Maybe in B&W the results are not as compelling as with 35mm color 
> where grain is considered a negative. With B&W, there is the
> interesting aspect that grain plays, because for some, grain is an
> intrinsic value/component of 35mm photography. Losing that with
> digital "creaminess", it's obvious why some photographers prefer the
> film image.

We are now seeing a lot of over-enlarged imagery. The above depends on that degree 
IMHO. There comes a point at which the eye needs SOMETHING in focus. Sharp grain is far 
more pleasing to me at any size than mush with nothing sharp anywhere.

...
> ...It is my
> contention that large format film results can be attained with these
> smaller digital cameras using stitching techniques. This can be done
> orienting the camera vertically & using a panorama jig, or using a
> "technical" camera with a sliding back for multiple exposures using
> the same nodal point of a larger coverage area lense.

I've had multu-exposure techniques also presented to me as a way to capture scene 
lighting ratio as well. I have to tell you, all of this seems silly. The percentage of images 
that could be made with multuple exposures on a tripod over a period of time must 
represent a very small fraction of imagery myself and other shooters I know have made, or 
want to make.

I'll say it again, why do I need this? I can make extraordinary images with film under a wide 
variety of lighting, in one exposure, with amazing detail, for far far cheaper than any 
capable digital capture system. Again, the cost is absurd, I mean really.

I regularly drum scam 35mm film and make 30x40 digital prints that look great. They 
have grain, sharp grain. When I make a print that size from an affordable (under $10,000!) 
capture system it's mush. Arguably, a good scanner is necessary.

Tyler

Tyler Boley wrote:

> We are now seeing a lot of over-enlarged imagery. The above depends on that degree 
> IMHO. There comes a point at which the eye needs SOMETHING in focus. Sharp grain is far 
> more pleasing to me at any size than mush with nothing sharp anywhere.

That describes my love/hate relationship with B&W grain quite 
well. But with color grain/clouds it is far less  appealing to 
me and I guess to more people. So you may have the strange 
conclusion that an analogue B&W image allows a larger print 
than a color print (analogue and digital prints) while there 
isn't more data available but just because there is that 
convention in taste about B&W grain. Part of the appreciation 
of BO printing in this list is related to that. All this 
probably has much to do with book printing, text, all that 
pure B&W graphic material we know since written language 
became black ink on white paper. We are less pleased with hard 
CMY/RGB dots on screens and papers.

I realised this again on Saturday after I bought an 
antiquarian Josef Sudek monograph by Anna F\ufffdrov\ufffd. I love his 
photographs but find it hard to overcome that modern taste for 
contrast and definition when I look at his earliest 
photography. Superb reproductions so that isn't the reason. 
The material and taste of that time resulted in images I find 
too soft while the composition etc still remain interesting. 
His work later on is far easier to appreciate. Nothing new of 
course, photos made by Steichen, Cameron require the same 
change of mind when viewed now. On the other hand I like the 
early Autochromes by Lartigue, color work by Sarah Moon, etc 
soft as they are. It could well be my printing background that 
makes this shift in appreciation more pronounced than others 
will experience, I do not know.

Ernst

-- 

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>
> Tyler Boley wrote:
> 
> > We are now seeing a lot of over-enlarged imagery. The above 
depends on that degree 
> > IMHO. There comes a point at which the eye needs SOMETHING in 
focus. Sharp grain is far 
> > more pleasing to me at any size than mush with nothing sharp 
anywhere.
> 
> That describes my love/hate relationship with B&W grain quite 
> well. But with color grain/clouds it is far less  appealing to 
> me and I guess to more people. So you may have the strange 
> conclusion that an analogue B&W image allows a larger print 
> than a color print (analogue and digital prints) while there 
> isn't more data available but just because there is that 
> convention in taste about B&W grain. Part of the appreciation 
> of BO printing in this list is related to that. All this 
> probably has much to do with book printing, text, all that 
> pure B&W graphic material we know since written language 
> became black ink on white paper. We are less pleased with hard 
> CMY/RGB dots on screens and papers.
> 


How does this effect differ (if at all) between the "traditional" B/W 
films compared to the C-41 process B/W films? I seem to recall a 
couple people saying the C-41 based films work very nicely for 
scanning, but I haven't had the chance to directly compare the two 
types of film. Something I guess I should do one of these days. And 
then there is the reversal B/W process to consider, is the grain the 
same after it is reversed to provide a positive?

Greg wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
> <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>> Tyler Boley wrote:
>>
>>> We are now seeing a lot of over-enlarged imagery. The above 
> depends on that degree 
>>> IMHO. There comes a point at which the eye needs SOMETHING in 
> focus. Sharp grain is far 
>>> more pleasing to me at any size than mush with nothing sharp 
> anywhere.
>> That describes my love/hate relationship with B&W grain quite 
>> well. But with color grain/clouds it is far less  appealing to 
>> me and I guess to more people. So you may have the strange 
>> conclusion that an analogue B&W image allows a larger print 
>> than a color print (analogue and digital prints) while there 
>> isn't more data available but just because there is that 
>> convention in taste about B&W grain. Part of the appreciation 
>> of BO printing in this list is related to that. All this 
>> probably has much to do with book printing, text, all that 
>> pure B&W graphic material we know since written language 
>> became black ink on white paper. We are less pleased with hard 
>> CMY/RGB dots on screens and papers.
>>
> 
> 
> How does this effect differ (if at all) between the "traditional" B/W 
> films compared to the C-41 process B/W films? I seem to recall a 
> couple people saying the C-41 based films work very nicely for 
> scanning, but I haven't had the chance to directly compare the two 
> types of film. Something I guess I should do one of these days. And 
> then there is the reversal B/W process to consider, is the grain the 
> same after it is reversed to provide a positive?

Chromogenic B&W scans better than analogue B&W if grain isn't 
what you like and the scanner can't cope with the high Dmax of 
a specific analogue B&W films. But it also doesn't have the 
B&W grain that can be attractive as Tyler describes.

Reversal B&W will be Agfa Scala in practice, not really suited 
to scanning either with the density range directed to 
projection. Availability of film and processing in view of 
AgfaPhoto being bankrupt should be considered too.

Like I wrote in another message on another list today: 
analogue film manufacturers should think of some R&D on color 
and B&W film that makes them more suitable for scanning and 
sell that film for that specific work flow sacrificing the 
normal analogue print qualities and/or projection quality of 
the films. That could keep film in competition with pure 
digital photography for a longer time. One would like to have 
the compressed dynamic range + lower Dmax of color negative 
film + its latitude in exposure and at the same time the image 
reversed on film already as grain and color noise is nicer in 
slide film scans. The orange mask of color negative film 
removed as well of course. A similar conventional B&W film 
should be possible too and of course chromogenic B&W film 
also. You can't do anything else with that kind of films though.

http://www.dr5.com/filmprintout.html says something about 
scanning positive B&W film including Scala.

Ernst

-- 

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
> 
> Reversal B&W will be Agfa Scala in practice, not really suited 
> to scanning either with the density range directed to 
> projection. Availability of film and processing in view of 
> AgfaPhoto being bankrupt should be considered too.

I've done some casual research on the reversal of B/W film, it seems 
there are a few films that have a clear base and reversal is posible. 
But again I've only read about it. It's in my list of "things to try 
someday". There is a store in the UK that sells kits for reversal 
developing some B/W films including Scala.


> 
> Like I wrote in another message on another list today: 
> analogue film manufacturers should think of some R&D on color 
> and B&W film that makes them more suitable for scanning and 
> sell that film for that specific work flow sacrificing the 
> normal analogue print qualities and/or projection quality of 
> the films. That could keep film in competition with pure 
> digital photography for a longer time. 


Kodak claims to have done this (to a limited extent) with their "new" 
motion picture films. I think they only mention color film, but they 
do claim that it scans better than the older motion picture films 
that they've produced. Here's the scan of an ad that ran many months 
ago in the magazine Broadcast Engineering (a TV trade magazine):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/Greg_E/KodakAD.jpg I forget 
what the url is, but I think you can get there from their main pages 
and select the motion films tab.

I had a few sheets of 4x5 TMAX 100 processed by dr5 (neutral  
process).  Transparencies were beautiful and scanned easily.

On May 1, 2006, at 12:40 PM, Greg wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
> <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>>
>> Reversal B&W will be Agfa Scala in practice, not really suited
>> to scanning either with the density range directed to
>> projection. Availability of film and processing in view of
>> AgfaPhoto being bankrupt should be considered too.
>
> I've done some casual research on the reversal of B/W film, it seems
> there are a few films that have a clear base and reversal is posible.
> But again I've only read about it. It's in my list of "things to try
> someday". There is a store in the UK that sells kits for reversal
> developing some B/W films including Scala.
>
>
>>
>> Like I wrote in another message on another list today:
>> analogue film manufacturers should think of some R&D on color
>> and B&W film that makes them more suitable for scanning and
>> sell that film for that specific work flow sacrificing the
>> normal analogue print qualities and/or projection quality of
>> the films. That could keep film in competition with pure
>> digital photography for a longer time.
>
>
> Kodak claims to have done this (to a limited extent) with their "new"
> motion picture films. I think they only mention color film, but they
> do claim that it scans better than the older motion picture films
> that they've produced. Here's the scan of an ad that ran many months
> ago in the magazine Broadcast Engineering (a TV trade magazine):
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/Greg_E/KodakAD.jpg I forget
> what the url is, but I think you can get there from their main pages
> and select the motion films tab.

I found out that the new Fuji Pro film gives an awesome scan using their 
Fuji frontier. I tried to scan these films with Nikon 5000, sony UY-S90 and 
a noriutsu machine and I kept getting grain. when scanned with the Fuji 
frontier, no grain. They may have done something to the emulsion that only 
works with their scanner.
I convert the film to B&W using photoshop. I then create another negative 
using my R220.
I contact print it under my beseller enlarger and Voila. Beautiful B&W 
print.
Pierre-Olivier

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ernst Dinkla" <E.Dinkla@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning 35mm vs digital camera


Greg wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
> <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>> Tyler Boley wrote:
>>
>>> We are now seeing a lot of over-enlarged imagery. The above
> depends on that degree
>>> IMHO. There comes a point at which the eye needs SOMETHING in
> focus. Sharp grain is far
>>> more pleasing to me at any size than mush with nothing sharp
> anywhere.
>> That describes my love/hate relationship with B&W grain quite
>> well. But with color grain/clouds it is far less  appealing to
>> me and I guess to more people. So you may have the strange
>> conclusion that an analogue B&W image allows a larger print
>> than a color print (analogue and digital prints) while there
>> isn't more data available but just because there is that
>> convention in taste about B&W grain. Part of the appreciation
>> of BO printing in this list is related to that. All this
>> probably has much to do with book printing, text, all that
>> pure B&W graphic material we know since written language
>> became black ink on white paper. We are less pleased with hard
>> CMY/RGB dots on screens and papers.
>>
>
>
> How does this effect differ (if at all) between the "traditional" B/W
> films compared to the C-41 process B/W films? I seem to recall a
> couple people saying the C-41 based films work very nicely for
> scanning, but I haven't had the chance to directly compare the two
> types of film. Something I guess I should do one of these days. And
> then there is the reversal B/W process to consider, is the grain the
> same after it is reversed to provide a positive?

Chromogenic B&W scans better than analogue B&W if grain isn't
what you like and the scanner can't cope with the high Dmax of
a specific analogue B&W films. But it also doesn't have the
B&W grain that can be attractive as Tyler describes.

Reversal B&W will be Agfa Scala in practice, not really suited
to scanning either with the density range directed to
projection. Availability of film and processing in view of
AgfaPhoto being bankrupt should be considered too.

Like I wrote in another message on another list today:
analogue film manufacturers should think of some R&D on color
and B&W film that makes them more suitable for scanning and
sell that film for that specific work flow sacrificing the
normal analogue print qualities and/or projection quality of
the films. That could keep film in competition with pure
digital photography for a longer time. One would like to have
the compressed dynamic range + lower Dmax of color negative
film + its latitude in exposure and at the same time the image
reversed on film already as grain and color noise is nicer in
slide film scans. The orange mask of color negative film
removed as well of course. A similar conventional B&W film
should be possible too and of course chromogenic B&W film
also. You can't do anything else with that kind of films though.

http://www.dr5.com/filmprintout.html says something about
scanning positive B&W film including Scala.

Ernst

-- 

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )


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

It's not too hard to reversal-process B&W film at home. The appearance 
of grain is different -- not better or worse, just different -- from 
what you get with a standard B&W negative process.

And a clear film base is only required for reversal processing if you 
are projecting your slides. No need for a clear base with B&W slides 
when scanning, just as you don't need a clear base on B&W negatives to 
scan them.

Greg wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
> <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>> Reversal B&W will be Agfa Scala in practice, not really suited 
>> to scanning either with the density range directed to 
>> projection. Availability of film and processing in view of 
>> AgfaPhoto being bankrupt should be considered too.
> 
> I've done some casual research on the reversal of B/W film, it seems 
> there are a few films that have a clear base and reversal is posible. 
> But again I've only read about it. It's in my list of "things to try 
> someday". There is a store in the UK that sells kits for reversal 
> developing some B/W films including Scala.
> 
> 
>> Like I wrote in another message on another list today: 
>> analogue film manufacturers should think of some R&D on color 
>> and B&W film that makes them more suitable for scanning and 
>> sell that film for that specific work flow sacrificing the 
>> normal analogue print qualities and/or projection quality of 
>> the films. That could keep film in competition with pure 
>> digital photography for a longer time. 
> 
> 
> Kodak claims to have done this (to a limited extent) with their "new" 
> motion picture films. I think they only mention color film, but they 
> do claim that it scans better than the older motion picture films 
> that they've produced. Here's the scan of an ad that ran many months 
> ago in the magazine Broadcast Engineering (a TV trade magazine):
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/Greg_E/KodakAD.jpg I forget 
> what the url is, but I think you can get there from their main pages 
> and select the motion films tab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 

-- 


Jordan Wosnick
jwosnick@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jordan Wosnick 
<jwosnick@...> wrote:
>
> 
> And a clear film base is only required for reversal processing if you 
> are projecting your slides. No need for a clear base with B&W slides 
> when scanning, just as you don't need a clear base on B&W negatives 
to 
> scan them.


True, I hadn't really thought about that since everything I found 
suggested a clear base.

I do also think that films designed for scanning would be a good idea. 
It won't be long before even motion pictures will be in an all digital 
form at the theaters. Display design still needs to make some advances, 
but it's getting closer.

After Kodak discontinued VPS-160, I began using Fuji NPS 160. The
results have been superb. (I'm speaking about color here thought, not
B&W conversion)
 Best
Howard

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Un Globe
Trotteur" <unglobetrotteur@...> wrote:
>
> I found out that the new Fuji Pro film gives an awesome scan using
their 
> Fuji frontier. I tried to scan these films with Nikon 5000, sony
UY-S90 and 
> a noriutsu machine and I kept getting grain. when scanned with the Fuji 
> frontier, no grain. They may have done something to the emulsion
that only 
> works with their scanner.
> I convert the film to B&W using photoshop. I then create another
negative 
> using my R220.
> I contact print it under my beseller enlarger and Voila. Beautiful B&W 
> print.
> Pierre-Olivier
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ernst Dinkla" <E.Dinkla@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 10:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
> 
> 
> Greg wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
> > <E.Dinkla@> wrote:
> >> Tyler Boley wrote:
> >>
> >>> We are now seeing a lot of over-enlarged imagery. The above
> > depends on that degree
> >>> IMHO. There comes a point at which the eye needs SOMETHING in
> > focus. Sharp grain is far
> >>> more pleasing to me at any size than mush with nothing sharp
> > anywhere.
> >> That describes my love/hate relationship with B&W grain quite
> >> well. But with color grain/clouds it is far less  appealing to
> >> me and I guess to more people. So you may have the strange
> >> conclusion that an analogue B&W image allows a larger print
> >> than a color print (analogue and digital prints) while there
> >> isn't more data available but just because there is that
> >> convention in taste about B&W grain. Part of the appreciation
> >> of BO printing in this list is related to that. All this
> >> probably has much to do with book printing, text, all that
> >> pure B&W graphic material we know since written language
> >> became black ink on white paper. We are less pleased with hard
> >> CMY/RGB dots on screens and papers.
> >>
> >
> >
> > How does this effect differ (if at all) between the "traditional" B/W
> > films compared to the C-41 process B/W films? I seem to recall a
> > couple people saying the C-41 based films work very nicely for
> > scanning, but I haven't had the chance to directly compare the two
> > types of film. Something I guess I should do one of these days. And
> > then there is the reversal B/W process to consider, is the grain the
> > same after it is reversed to provide a positive?
> 
> Chromogenic B&W scans better than analogue B&W if grain isn't
> what you like and the scanner can't cope with the high Dmax of
> a specific analogue B&W films. But it also doesn't have the
> B&W grain that can be attractive as Tyler describes.
> 
> Reversal B&W will be Agfa Scala in practice, not really suited
> to scanning either with the density range directed to
> projection. Availability of film and processing in view of
> AgfaPhoto being bankrupt should be considered too.
> 
> Like I wrote in another message on another list today:
> analogue film manufacturers should think of some R&D on color
> and B&W film that makes them more suitable for scanning and
> sell that film for that specific work flow sacrificing the
> normal analogue print qualities and/or projection quality of
> the films. That could keep film in competition with pure
> digital photography for a longer time. One would like to have
> the compressed dynamic range + lower Dmax of color negative
> film + its latitude in exposure and at the same time the image
> reversed on film already as grain and color noise is nicer in
> slide film scans. The orange mask of color negative film
> removed as well of course. A similar conventional B&W film
> should be possible too and of course chromogenic B&W film
> also. You can't do anything else with that kind of films though.
> 
> http://www.dr5.com/filmprintout.html says something about
> scanning positive B&W film including Scala.
> 
> Ernst
> 
> -- 
> 
>                     --
>            Ernst Dinkla
> 
> 
> www.pigment-print.com
> (         unvollendet         )
> 
> 
> 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
>

Alot about scanning is very film dependent. Delta 100 scans
beautifully, pretty much the same for well exposed FP4+. But
I find HP5+ more of a challenge, and TMZ a hill too steep for
me to climb :-)

I read somewhere that a good digital capture is superior to a
amateur scanned (Nikon, etc.) frame of 135 format film, due
to noise, grain aliasing and other artifacts introduced during
the film scanning process.  I don't know whether this is true
or not, but I have found that digi printing an acceptable (to me)
11x14 or 11x17 from  digital capture (Nikon D70) is easier
and has a better chance of success than starting from a film
scan from my Nikon V.  Who knows.

Scott

Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> > How does this effect differ (if at all) between the "traditional" B/W
> > films compared to the C-41 process B/W films? I seem to recall a
> > couple people saying the C-41 based films work very nicely for
> > scanning, but I haven't had the chance to directly compare the two
> > types of film. Something I guess I should do one of these days. And
> > then there is the reversal B/W process to consider, is the grain the
> > same after it is reversed to provide a positive?
>
> Chromogenic B&W scans better than analogue B&W if grain isn't
> what you like and the scanner can't cope with the high Dmax of
> a specific analogue B&W films. But it also doesn't have the
> B&W grain that can be attractive as Tyler describes.
>
> Reversal B&W will be Agfa Scala in practice, not really suited
> to scanning either with the density range directed to
> projection. Availability of film and processing in view of
> AgfaPhoto being bankrupt should be considered too.
>
> [snip]


-- 
Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps
Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35
(Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act)