Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-26 by Gary Brown

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 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
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>----- 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

Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-26 by Sam McCandless

At 3:13 AM -0700 3/26/06, 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. [snip]

I got two copies of this post of Gary's. The other one was on the 
DigitalBW-PrintExchanges list, but I don't believe this thread has 
been running concurrently there?
--
Sam

RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-26 by Eric Neilsen

Gary, I didn't take it personally. 

" (limited as it was ; ) )"

Just curious as to while the delete key is hard for some people to use?
Times change, peoples knowledge bases grow; perhaps this month there would
be some new information. 

Have a good day,

Eric

Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
http://ericneilsenphotography.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary
> Brown
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 4:13 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)
> 
> 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 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
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>

RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-26 by Michael Vendrell

I agree with those who feel this is ON topic and is of
interest to me.  I did in fact receive new knowledge
and inspiration from this thread.  Digital is in a
constant state of change so 3 months can sometimes
mean a lot.  Analog capture and processing has been
around for a long enough time for there to be many
"nooks and crannies" of experience and knowledge taht
can be shared and learned.   

If how the B&W image is captured , processed, and
scanned (if necessary) are not important parts of
printing, what is?

I admit that I have little personal interest in
spectrophotometers for example, but I just hit
<delete> and move on to the next post.  I don't write
and request the subject be banned or make prayers to
God to somehow edit these out before they hit my
in-box - or whose yet, strike the posters e-mute!

As others have said before,  I believe our hearts and
minds in this forum are large enough to accommodate
practically all that has to do with making beautiful
(to us)  B&W prints where the final or penultimate (as
in digital negatives) output is digital.

Personal attack is the only subject which I would
suggest be taboo.  And when someone says "don't take
this personally" one can be sure it was intended to
hurt.   Those who truly wish not to hurt orhers
feelings - ust don't - or if they do so
unintentionally or in the heat of the moment,
apologize.

Michael Vendrell, MD

--- Eric Neilsen  <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

> Gary, I didn't take it personally. 
> 
> " (limited as it was ; ) )"
> 
> Just curious as to while the delete key is hard for
> some people to use?
> Times change, peoples knowledge bases grow; perhaps
> this month there would
> be some new information. 
> 
> Have a good day,
> 
> Eric
> 
> 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: Sunday, March 26, 2006 4:13 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital
> camera (off topic)
> > 
> > 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 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 


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

RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-26 by John Moody

Michael,
Agreed.  My disappointment, and I believe what the post you responded to
addressed, is the run-on commentary with little substance.
My-dog-can-beat-up-your-dog comments get exhausting.

In the past we discussed scanned film grain appearance with the inkjet
process, and how it differs from darkroom prints.  I wonder if anyone has
tried printing 35mm scans with the K6/K7 inkset, and how do they look
compared to ultrachrome QTR prints?

Best regards,
John Moody
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Michael
Vendrell
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 1:18 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

I agree with those who feel this is ON topic and is of
interest to me. <SNIP>


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

35mm scans printed with the K6/K7 inkset was RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-26 by John Moody

Pardon me for not changing the subject previously.

Best regards,
John Moody
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of John Moody
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 1:53 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

Michael,
Agreed.  My disappointment, and I believe what the post you responded to
addressed, is the run-on commentary with little substance.
My-dog-can-beat-up-your-dog comments get exhausting.

In the past we discussed scanned film grain appearance with the inkjet
process, and how it differs from darkroom prints.  I wonder if anyone has
tried printing 35mm scans with the K6/K7 inkset, and how do they look
compared to ultrachrome QTR prints?

Best regards,
John Moody




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

RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-26 by Michael Vendrell

John, and I agree with you as well in the vein of
"this is better that that ... yada, yada, yada....

Michael

--- John Moody <moodymz3@...> wrote:

> Michael,
> Agreed.  My disappointment, and I believe what the
> post you responded to
> addressed, is the run-on commentary with little
> substance.
> My-dog-can-beat-up-your-dog comments get exhausting.
> 
> In the past we discussed scanned film grain
> appearance with the inkjet
> process, and how it differs from darkroom prints.  I
> wonder if anyone has
> tried printing 35mm scans with the K6/K7 inkset, and
> how do they look
> compared to ultrachrome QTR prints?
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On
> Behalf Of Michael
> Vendrell
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 1:18 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital
> camera (off topic)
> 
> I agree with those who feel this is ON topic and is
> of
> interest to me. <SNIP>
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> 
> 


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

Re: 35mm scans printed with the K6/K7 inkset was RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-26 by Michael Vendrell

When I get a break from my "day job" (I'm a medical
imaging specialist with sub-sub specialty in Breast
MRI and CAD for such) and moving houses I'm intending
on doing just that on my 2200 with NK7's.  I also have
6x6cm and 6x7cm negs most with Agfapan 25 or Tech Pan
to rescan with my Nikon 9000 (which just returned from
warranty repair) and then print. I haven't yet
approached a scanning process for my old 8x10 inch
TriX/HC110 negs.  I hope to though one day before I
get too old - I'll be 55 on 4/4!  When I get anything
worth sharing, I'll let you know...

Michael Vendrell

--- John Moody <moodymz3@...> wrote:

> Pardon me for not changing the subject previously.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On
> Behalf Of John Moody
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 1:53 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital
> camera (off topic)
> 
> Michael,
> Agreed.  My disappointment, and I believe what the
> post you responded to
> addressed, is the run-on commentary with little
> substance.
> My-dog-can-beat-up-your-dog comments get exhausting.
> 
> In the past we discussed scanned film grain
> appearance with the inkjet
> process, and how it differs from darkroom prints.  I
> wonder if anyone has
> tried printing 35mm scans with the K6/K7 inkset, and
> how do they look
> compared to ultrachrome QTR prints?
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> 
> 


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

RE: 35mm scans printed with the K6/K7 inkset was RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-26 by Eric Neilsen Photo 2

John, I will be happy to share my results when I have them. There are so
many new aspects that I need just a little free time. I can't speak to K6/K7
for now. I can add what QTR, Qimage, Image Print and Cone Sepia Inks can do
with B&W scans from Imacon Flextight II, and Nikon 9000 after I have a
chance to get them all working as best they can. While the K6 has interest,
I need to keep the Sepia running for editions in progress.  

My base system before all the new stuff is IP with scans for the Imacon, my
older files 35mm to 4x5, with the Cone inks. I also run a 4800 with the K3.
I have been able to get to a very close color/tone match with the K3s to the
7000 output and Cones Sepia set (museum black). I also have another RIP that
I am testing.

Too much going on. 

Eric
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of John Moody
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 12:59 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: 35mm scans printed with the K6/K7 inkset was RE:
> [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)
> 
> Pardon me for not changing the subject previously.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
> Of John Moody
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 1:53 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off
> topic)
> 
> Michael,
> Agreed.  My disappointment, and I believe what the post you
> responded to
> addressed, is the run-on commentary with little substance.
> My-dog-can-beat-up-your-dog comments get exhausting.
> 
> In the past we discussed scanned film grain appearance with the
> inkjet
> process, and how it differs from darkroom prints.  I wonder if
> anyone has
> tried printing 35mm scans with the K6/K7 inkset, and how do
> they look
> compared to ultrachrome QTR prints?
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [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
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-26 by john dean

Yes John,I have. I am printing a limited edition portfolio from Howtek
drum scans of 35mm Leica tri x negatives, 16x20 on Hahnemuhle Museum
Etching right now. After this one is finished my client wants another
 different portfolio of 20 editons also. I have previously output
these files with a 9600 with QTR and Ultrachome. The K6 are to my
client and me much nicer in everyway, color tone , black density, and
especially smoothness of midtone and highlight values. I have liked a
lot of inkjet monochrome work that I've done in the past but this is
the first combination that I can say I really love. I believe there
are about 4 or 5 really good ways to do mono inkjet these days but
this is the best one I have worked with. I certainly hope it is
economicly successful because I'm already totally dependent on it.
However, drums scans of 4x5 blow away the 35mm in smoothnesss and
range which is not surprising, and this is what I am starting to do
with my own work.

I've also done several drum scans of Scala 35mm transparency film on
K6. Now that Scala stuff has really limited shadow info on the film
but they were well exposed and they are good too. I will  say  on
record that after trying about 5 or 6 other inksets over the years I'm
totally sold on K6 or K7. To me its perfect, if you want neutral. I
believe Jon is working on a glossy compatable version. Now if that is
successful, with the better fiber gloss papers out there, I will
surely seriously  begin working with that combination as well and we
would see a whole new resurgence in black and white photography. And
of course Epson K3 for that is pretty amazing too for the glossy end
of things.

John





 I wonder if anyone has
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> tried printing 35mm scans with the K6/K7 inkset, and how do they look
> compared to ultrachrome QTR prints?
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
>

RE: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-26 by John Moody

John,
Thanks for the detailed report.  The reason I was interested in 35mm, is
because the obvious film grain would be part of the “creative” work, that
some say only looks “right” in a darkroom print.  With the smoothness of K6,
it might get closer to that look?

Best regards,
John Moody
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of john dean
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 2:50 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)


Yes John,I have. I am printing a limited edition portfolio from Howtek
drum scans of 35mm Leica tri x negatives, 16x20 on Hahnemuhle Museum
Etching right now. After this one is finished my client wants another
different portfolio of 20 editons also. I have previously output
these files with a 9600 with QTR and Ultrachome. The K6 are to my
client and me much nicer in everyway, color tone , black density, and
especially smoothness of midtone and highlight values. I have liked a
lot of inkjet monochrome work that I've done in the past but this is
the first combination that I can say I really love. I believe there
are about 4 or 5 really good ways to do mono inkjet these days but
this is the best one I have worked with. I certainly hope it is
economicly successful because I'm already totally dependent on it.
However, drums scans of 4x5 blow away the 35mm in smoothnesss and
range which is not surprising, and this is what I am starting to do
with my own work.

I've also done several drum scans of Scala 35mm transparency film on
K6. Now that Scala stuff has really limited shadow info on the film
but they were well exposed and they are good too. I will  say  on
record that after trying about 5 or 6 other inksets over the years I'm
totally sold on K6 or K7. To me its perfect, if you want neutral. I
believe Jon is working on a glossy compatable version. Now if that is
successful, with the better fiber gloss papers out there, I will
surely seriously  begin working with that combination as well and we
would see a whole new resurgence in black and white photography. And
of course Epson K3 for that is pretty amazing too for the glossy end
of things.

John





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

Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-26 by john dean

John,

 A lot of that "rightness" is determined by HOW it is scanned (
scanner aperture in conjunction with scanner dpi, fluid, etc). That
has a huge impact on grain. I have a Nikon scanner too and I've always
hated the way it renders 35mm grain, regardless of film type. It just
looks crude to me. If you are looking for the smoothest resuls, the cn
type films give it to you but with the loss of a bit of shadow
contrast in my experience. Some people love that smoother look, others
don't at all. It's subjectiveand image dependent. 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@...> wrote:
>
> John,
> Thanks for the detailed report.  The reason I was interested in 35mm, is
> because the obvious film grain would be part of the "creative" work,
that
> some say only looks "right" in a darkroom print.  With the
smoothness of K6,
> it might get closer to that look?
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
john dean
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 2:50 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)
> 
> 
> Yes John,I have. I am printing a limited edition portfolio from Howtek
> drum scans of 35mm Leica tri x negatives, 16x20 on Hahnemuhle Museum
> Etching right now. After this one is finished my client wants another
> different portfolio of 20 editons also. I have previously output
> these files with a 9600 with QTR and Ultrachome. The K6 are to my
> client and me much nicer in everyway, color tone , black density, and
> especially smoothness of midtone and highlight values. I have liked a
> lot of inkjet monochrome work that I've done in the past but this is
> the first combination that I can say I really love. I believe there
> are about 4 or 5 really good ways to do mono inkjet these days but
> this is the best one I have worked with. I certainly hope it is
> economicly successful because I'm already totally dependent on it.
> However, drums scans of 4x5 blow away the 35mm in smoothnesss and
> range which is not surprising, and this is what I am starting to do
> with my own work.
> 
> I've also done several drum scans of Scala 35mm transparency film on
> K6. Now that Scala stuff has really limited shadow info on the film
> but they were well exposed and they are good too. I will  say  on
> record that after trying about 5 or 6 other inksets over the years I'm
> totally sold on K6 or K7. To me its perfect, if you want neutral. I
> believe Jon is working on a glossy compatable version. Now if that is
> successful, with the better fiber gloss papers out there, I will
> surely seriously  begin working with that combination as well and we
> would see a whole new resurgence in black and white photography. And
> of course Epson K3 for that is pretty amazing too for the glossy end
> of things.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-27 by Tyler Boley

let me preface this by saying I shoot commercially with Canon DSLRs regularly, they're 
fine.
The larger capture backs, I'm sure they are impressive, but the cost is ridiculous. It would 
take a very unusual, larger volume shop to remotely justify the expense in a market like 
mine.
Even with the Canons, I have friends spending a lot of stress time trying to figure out 
exactly when to sell the one they just bought to maximize selling price, so they can get 
the new one when it comes out. They upgrade every time, compare that ongoing 
investment to the RZ I bought used many years ago, still works very very well, probably 
better. Paid for, done.
I recently got to visit one of our top digital guru's studios, he is also a photographer. He 
has all the toys, and showed a print from a new prerelease 39mp back. He commented 
that we had finally arrived. He also forgot that practically right next to it was a print made 
from a Tango drum scan of a 4x5 sheet of Velvia. It was very clear that we had indeed 
arrived, to someplace where things cost far far too much and aren't nearly as good.

For B&W, I shoot 5x7 neg film and use the zone system, still, when I can. There is no 
digital capture system that will have the single exposure light sensitivity (speed), 
incredible controllable range of light it can include, and have the kind of resolution in the 
print, that I am aware of.
Compared to the cost of my old used Deardorf, lenses, film holders, and film, a potentially 
comparable capture system price simply sounds like a joke. I'd rather get a new car.
The simple fact of the matter is that the old technology and tools and materials are being 
obsolesced by something that can not actually take it's place, and costs ten times more.
It's a classic case of how one group will create a new marketplace while killing the old, just 
because they can, not because we needed it.
Many of the images/prints I have made, and want to continue to make, can not be done 
with the new, nor can I even afford that of it that might come close.

Keep in mind, I do shoot digital, even for some personal things. I have no dogmatic 
problem with it. It just doesn't do the job, for me, for some, it seems to.
I'll keep my eye on it, but I repeat, I can make my B&W "art" with film, I can't with digital 
capture. I'm not willing to give up those images, I don't need further limitations than my 
own head.
My apologies for the length, it's Sunday.
Tyler
www.custom-digital.com

Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-27 by Clayton Jones

Hello Michael,

>I agree with those who feel this is ON topic and is of
>interest to me.  I did in fact receive new knowledge
>and inspiration from this thread...I don't write and request the 
>subject be banned or make prayers to God to somehow edit these 
>out before they hit my in-box...

>As others have said before,  I believe our hearts and
>minds in this forum are large enough to accommodate
>practically all that has to do with making beautiful
>(to us)  B&W prints where the final or penultimate (as
>in digital negatives) output is digital.

Thanks for your (as usual) well thought out and well expressed reply.
If you were to somehow go back and read all the things I've posted
here on the subject of OT threads you would find that I have often
defended the idea that occasional OT threads are welcome, as you are
doing now, and that they broaden and enrich the normal fare.  However,
digi vs film and camera brand/lens debates also have a history here of
getting out of hand and dragging on for days and days and days to the
point of driving away people, especially newcomers, who come looking
for help with printing only to find yet another forum that resembles
dpreview and countless others.  One of the reasons this forum has
remained so popular is _because_ it remains focused on topic, and it's
not uncommon to get the occasional post thanking us for being that way.

Best I can tell, there is a general agreement that these OT threads
are OK as long as we all use self-restraint and don't let them get out
of hand.  The question of course is when is that point reached.  This
thread has dominated the forum for four days now and is beginning to
get tiresome.  I kept hoping someone else would say something, but it
shows no signs of letting up.

The forum moderators want this to be a self-policing forum so that
they don't have to be enforcers all the time, so they usually come in
and say something only as a last resort.  The term self-policing
implies that now and then someone has to speak up and be the bad guy
and give us a reminder.  My post was an attempt to do just that in
what I hoped was a light and humorous manner (and I apologize if it
offended anyone, perhaps it was not a good choice).

I value your input on this because it defends the subject in an
eloquent way, which is also needed, and it is another of your many
valuable contributions.  In a broader view I see this as an
opportunity to bring this subject to the front again, as it seems to
need periodically, because surely there are many new readers who
haven't seen it articulated before.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Re: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera (off topic)

2006-03-27 by Michael Vendrell

Thanks Clayton.  You make very valid points.  I got
the humor in your original post - it was the 
piling-on by a few others which got my hackles
slightly up. i have attempted to stay true to the
spirit on final product of B&W  digital print , but
admit sometimes to have strayed a bit afield.  You,
Paul Roark, and Jon Cone have made the last step more
and more straightforward and I'm now putting more of
my focus onto the beginning of the front end with The
Print onto matte rag paper envisioned as the end
point.  Thanks again and I'm sorry if I perpetuated
"my dog can eat your dog" dialogue in any way.

Michael

--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:

> Hello Michael,
> 
> >I agree with those who feel this is ON topic and is
> of
> >interest to me.  I did in fact receive new
> knowledge
> >and inspiration from this thread...I don't write
> and request the 
> >subject be banned or make prayers to God to somehow
> edit these 
> >out before they hit my in-box...
> 
> >As others have said before,  I believe our hearts
> and
> >minds in this forum are large enough to accommodate
> >practically all that has to do with making
> beautiful
> >(to us)  B&W prints where the final or penultimate
> (as
> >in digital negatives) output is digital.
> 
> Thanks for your (as usual) well thought out and well
> expressed reply.
> If you were to somehow go back and read all the
> things I've posted
> here on the subject of OT threads you would find
> that I have often
> defended the idea that occasional OT threads are
> welcome, as you are
> doing now, and that they broaden and enrich the
> normal fare.  However,
> digi vs film and camera brand/lens debates also have
> a history here of
> getting out of hand and dragging on for days and
> days and days to the
> point of driving away people, especially newcomers,
> who come looking
> for help with printing only to find yet another
> forum that resembles
> dpreview and countless others.  One of the reasons
> this forum has
> remained so popular is _because_ it remains focused
> on topic, and it's
> not uncommon to get the occasional post thanking us
> for being that way.
> 
> Best I can tell, there is a general agreement that
> these OT threads
> are OK as long as we all use self-restraint and
> don't let them get out
> of hand.  The question of course is when is that
> point reached.  This
> thread has dominated the forum for four days now and
> is beginning to
> get tiresome.  I kept hoping someone else would say
> something, but it
> shows no signs of letting up.
> 
> The forum moderators want this to be a self-policing
> forum so that
> they don't have to be enforcers all the time, so
> they usually come in
> and say something only as a last resort.  The term
> self-policing
> implies that now and then someone has to speak up
> and be the bad guy
> and give us a reminder.  My post was an attempt to
> do just that in
> what I hoped was a light and humorous manner (and I
> apologize if it
> offended anyone, perhaps it was not a good choice).
> 
> I value your input on this because it defends the
> subject in an
> eloquent way, which is also needed, and it is
> another of your many
> valuable contributions.  In a broader view I see
> this as an
> opportunity to bring this subject to the front
> again, as it seems to
> need periodically, because surely there are many new
> readers who
> haven't seen it articulated before.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.