Digital BW, The Print

I'm heading out to Utah this weekend and to the Sierra's next month. 
I understand that film scans may likely result in better data files
for printing.  I have a Canon 20D; Nikon 35 mm film and a medium
format film camera.  My question is, should I shoot the 35 mm and get
high resolution scans or shoot with the median format?  After
scanning, will the medium format platform out-perform the data I can
get from the 35 mm sufficient to offset the additional effort?  My
second question pertains to choice of film.  Should I shoot with
Velvia, Tri-X or maybe just color film and convert to B & W in
Photoshop?  Finally, does anyone have a recommendation for a reliable
film-scanning service?

Thanks to all.  I appreciate your thoughts.

Tom

Having everything from sub-35mm to 8x10 formats, it seems obvious that a medium format (even 645) will out perform 35mm.  That is, if all else is equal.  'Hassel' is a different story.  If you are backpacking most medium format is quite a bit heavier.  Although, Roy Harrington's 4x5 set up for backpacking is quite lite and compact.  Rangefinder 645's are probably the best way to go for backpacking.  Film is strictly a subjective choice.
   
  As with everthing else, there a pros and cons for each format you would consider.  Set your priorities and do an objective valuation.
   
  The higher end digitals are producing some seriously good b&w.  But, if the ultimate quiality is your quest, a 4x5 film is still king of hill.  (Unless of course you can go bigger.)  Particularly with b&w size really does matter..
   
  Tom Baker

TFielder <tfielder@...> wrote:
          I'm heading out to Utah this weekend and to the Sierra's next month. 
I understand that film scans may likely result in better data files
for printing. I have a Canon 20D; Nikon 35 mm film and a medium
format film camera. My question is, should I shoot the 35 mm and get
high resolution scans or shoot with the median format? After
scanning, will the medium format platform out-perform the data I can
get from the 35 mm sufficient to offset the additional effort? My
second question pertains to choice of film. Should I shoot with
Velvia, Tri-X or maybe just color film and convert to B & W in
Photoshop? Finally, does anyone have a recommendation for a reliable
film-scanning service?

Thanks to all. I appreciate your thoughts.

Tom



                           


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "TFielder" <tfielder@...> wrote:
>
> I'm heading out to Utah this weekend and to the Sierra's next month. 
> I understand that film scans may likely result in better data files
> for printing.  I have a Canon 20D; Nikon 35 mm film and a medium
> format film camera.  My question is, should I shoot the 35 mm and get
> high resolution scans or shoot with the median format?  After
> scanning, will the medium format platform out-perform the data I can
> get from the 35 mm sufficient to offset the additional effort?  My
> second question pertains to choice of film.  Should I shoot with
> Velvia, Tri-X or maybe just color film and convert to B & W in
> Photoshop?  Finally, does anyone have a recommendation for a reliable
> film-scanning service?
> 
> Thanks to all.  I appreciate your thoughts.
> 
> Tom
>
The advantage of the medium format size film is you get much more detail than the 35 
mm.  Calypso imaging in Santa Cruz CA can do the scans for you.  I shoot with a 
Hasselblad using Fuji Acros and scan it in with my own film scanner, a Minolta Dimage 
Mjltipro.  The newer Nikon 9000 will do excellent job scanning.  I scan at 3200 dpi but 
the newer Nikon will scan medium format uninterpolated at 4000 dpi.  When I scan I scan 
the image as an rgb positive and then invert it in photoshop. Make sure you are working 
at 48 bits also.

The medium format has just that much more data which you can take advantage of in 
photoshop.

I have yet to find a way to convert color to b&w that meets the detail and subtlety of the 
film that I use.  As I said, I shoot Fuji Acros and develop in Pyro.  

Good luck.

Mike

I generally use my Pentax 67. There are advantages and disadvantages.
The main advantage is obvious, the large amount of information in the
negative. The larger you print the more you need that. Also you have
more cropping flexibility with a large neg; that may or may not be an
issue for you. The disadvantage I am increasingly aware of is film
grain. Even a fine grain T-Max type film, I use Delta 400, produces
obvious grain for the scanner to scan (Tri-X is worse). It can be
dealt with in Photoshop with blurring and sharpening but sometimes not
satisfactorily. It is an advantage in this regard to set your scanner
to do multiple passes if it has that option. As between a 35 mm film
camera and a digital 35 (I have a Nikon D200); I would definitely
choose digital plus the usual advice to buy the best lens you can
afford. If the trade off is bells and whistles on the camera vs
lenses, choose better lenses every time. The D200 is a terrific
camera, but overkill in my hands; I use it like a K1000 about 90
percent of the time. Finally, I don't think it matters whether you
scan in RGB or gray scale (there is a debate about this, but I am not
convinced, so I've stopped scanning in RGB; your first step in PS will
be convert to gray scale, and that will cut your file size by 2/3.

Sorry, I missed a part of your question. It seems like you want to
make black and white prints. If that is the objective, then if you opt
for the film camera, use monochrome film not color film. Good scanning
software (like SilverFast) is setup to deal with issues relating to
negative film. Just be mindful of the grain issue eg. T-Max or Delta
over Tri-X, slow speed rather than fast. Shoot from a monopod or
tripod whenever possible. I've heard that NancyScans is also a good
scanning service.
>

Tom,

 

I would say the the medium format would be the best of all worlds.   If b/w
is your end result then I would chose a finer grain film like,

Acros or Delta 100 or even FP4

 

As for scanning much depends on how large you will be printing them.  I am
amazed at the detail I can pull out of some old 6x7 b/w negs of classic
figure in the landscape image.

 

I hope to rent a Imacon in a few days and see how they compare to my Epson
4890 flatbed.

 

Paul

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of TFielder
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 6:14 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] choices

 

I'm heading out to Utah this weekend and to the Sierra's next month. 
I understand that film scans may likely result in better data files
for printing. I have a Canon 20D; Nikon 35 mm film and a medium
format film camera. My question is, should I shoot the 35 mm and get
high resolution scans or shoot with the median format? After
scanning, will the medium format platform out-perform the data I can
get from the 35 mm sufficient to offset the additional effort? My
second question pertains to choice of film. Should I shoot with
Velvia, Tri-X or maybe just color film and convert to B & W in
Photoshop? Finally, does anyone have a recommendation for a reliable
film-scanning service?

Thanks to all. I appreciate your thoughts.

Tom

 



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

Tom,

 

Film can handle a far higher subject brightness range (SBR) than digital -
so B&W film if there's any chance that you want to capture the very high SBR
you'll no doubt encounter on your trips; otherwise you'll get blocked up
shadows and/or burnt out highlights with digital.

 

I mainly use Tmax100 and can easily get on film an SBR of 15 stops (or more)
- and my scanner (Epson V700) can handle all of the resulting density range
in the negatives.  Try that with a digital camera.  To accommodate that SBR
with a digital camera you'd have to resort to multiple exposures and then
use image blending techniques such as HDR to stand any chance of producing a
full range B&W print.  But if your subjects are limited in SBR then digital
capture is ideal.  I use 5x4, but the same principles apply to both 35mm &
medium format.

 

Steve Gledhill

www.virtuallygrey.co.uk

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of TFielder
Sent: 08 June 2008 14:14
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] choices

 

I'm heading out to Utah this weekend and to the Sierra's next month. 
I understand that film scans may likely result in better data files
for printing. I have a Canon 20D; Nikon 35 mm film and a medium
format film camera. My question is, should I shoot the 35 mm and get
high resolution scans or shoot with the median format? After
scanning, will the medium format platform out-perform the data I can
get from the 35 mm sufficient to offset the additional effort? My
second question pertains to choice of film. Should I shoot with
Velvia, Tri-X or maybe just color film and convert to B & W in
Photoshop? Finally, does anyone have a recommendation for a reliable
film-scanning service?

Thanks to all. I appreciate your thoughts.

Tom 



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

I would recommend shooting medium format with XP2 Super film.  It's 
extremely fine grained, it scans well, it can be shot between ei 50 and 
800 with good results.

> From: TFielder
>
> I'm heading out to Utah this weekend and to the Sierra's next month.
> I understand that film scans may likely result in better data files
> for printing.  I have a Canon 20D; Nikon 35 mm film and a medium
> format film camera.  My question is, should I shoot the 35 mm and get
> high resolution scans or shoot with the median format?  After
> scanning, will the medium format platform out-perform the data I can
> get from the 35 mm sufficient to offset the additional effort?

For landscapes, you can also shoot multiple images with the 20D and stitch
them together, to get any resolution you want. Bit of a learning curve, but
the results are stunning. And you don't pay for all that film and
processing.

--

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

If you are so luky to have a medium format camera, my advise is: "use
it, it's always a good choice!". 35mm it is absolutely ok, but in case
of scanning negatives it would be better to buy a dedicated scanner
(drum scanner) to have good results. If you are planning to scan
occasionally, go for an external shop. Do not do it yourself if you
don't have a good scanner and a good software (with IR defects removal
and so on). 

Regarding the choice between B&W films or color films, I suggest to go
for B&W as generally the emulsion is deeper compared to color films
(where you need three emulsions sensitive to the three main colors). I
"was born" with digital camera, but if you ask to films experts (think
here you'll find a lot), I'm sure they'll clarify these tech items far
better than me.

Good shoots then.

Cheers,

Stefano




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

>
> I'm heading out to Utah this weekend and to the Sierra's next month. 
> I understand that film scans may likely result in better data files
> for printing.  I have a Canon 20D; Nikon 35 mm film and a medium
> format film camera.  My question is, should I shoot the 35 mm and get
> high resolution scans or shoot with the median format?  After
> scanning, will the medium format platform out-perform the data I can
> get from the 35 mm sufficient to offset the additional effort?  My
> second question pertains to choice of film.  Should I shoot with
> Velvia, Tri-X or maybe just color film and convert to B & W in
> Photoshop?  Finally, does anyone have a recommendation for a reliable
> film-scanning service?
> 
> Thanks to all.  I appreciate your thoughts.
> 
> Tom
>

I would look to;

What can you carry?

And, What is your final output??

Medium format will crop to 35mm views if you have to.

gar

Please don't take this the wrong way, but YOU are really the only person
here that can answer that for you. Get your ass of the sofa, shoot some B&W,
your choice but the bigger the grain , the harder your scanning life, shoot
some color like porta, or velvia, and get the stuff scanned. You will of
course be at the mercy of the scan operator so deal with it. Or better yet,
learn to scan it yourself. 

 

There are just so many issues to address that separately they don't mean
much and together is really your job. There have been some ok suggestions,
but it will come down to what do you NORAMLLY do, what are you BEST at, and
WHAT do you really want to accomplish? 

 

 We are all long past the days of handing your film off to the lab and
expecting "a" result. Printers, inks, papers, cameras, etc have changed so
often that what is written today is at a best guess tomorrow. 

 

If it were me, I'd buck up and take both digital and film. Coverage man!
Make sure you have something reliable with you that doesn't run out of juice
or hutspha (sp).

 

Eric 

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul D.
DeRocco
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 5:39 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] choices

 

> From: TFielder
>
> I'm heading out to Utah this weekend and to the Sierra's next month.
> I understand that film scans may likely result in better data files
> for printing. I have a Canon 20D; Nikon 35 mm film and a medium
> format film camera. My question is, should I shoot the 35 mm and get
> high resolution scans or shoot with the median format? After
> scanning, will the medium format platform out-perform the data I can
> get from the 35 mm sufficient to offset the additional effort?

For landscapes, you can also shoot multiple images with the 20D and stitch
them together, to get any resolution you want. Bit of a learning curve, but
the results are stunning. And you don't pay for all that film and
processing.

--

Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pderocco@ix. <mailto:pderocco%40ix.netcom.com> netcom.com

 



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

On Jun 9, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Eric Neilsen wrote:

> Please don't take this the wrong way, but YOU are really the only  
> person
> here that can answer that for you. Get your ass of the sofa, shoot  
> some B&W,
> your choice but the bigger the grain , the harder your scanning  
> life, shoot
> some color like porta, or velvia, and get the stuff scanned. You  
> will of
> course be at the mercy of the scan operator so deal with it. Or  
> better yet,
> learn to scan it yourself.
>
>
>
> There are just so many issues to address that separately they don't  
> mean
> much and together is really your job. There have been some ok  
> suggestions,
> but it will come down to what do you NORAMLLY do, what are you BEST  
> at, and
> WHAT do you really want to accomplish?
>
>
>
>  We are all long past the days of handing your film off to the lab and
> expecting "a" result. Printers, inks, papers, cameras, etc have  
> changed so
> often that what is written today is at a best guess tomorrow.
>
>
>
> If it were me, I'd buck up and take both digital and film. Coverage  
> man!
> Make sure you have something reliable with you that doesn't run out  
> of juice
> or hutspha (sp).
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric Neilsen Photography
>
> 4101 Commerce Street
>
> Suite 9
>
> Dallas, TX 75226
>
> http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
>
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
>
> Skype ejprinter
>
>   _____
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  
> Paul D.
> DeRocco
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 5:39 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] choices
>
>
>
>> From: TFielder
>>
>> I'm heading out to Utah this weekend and to the Sierra's next month.
>> I understand that film scans may likely result in better data files
>> for printing. I have a Canon 20D; Nikon 35 mm film and a medium
>> format film camera. My question is, should I shoot the 35 mm and get
>> high resolution scans or shoot with the median format? After
>> scanning, will the medium format platform out-perform the data I can
>> get from the 35 mm sufficient to offset the additional effort?
>
> For landscapes, you can also shoot multiple images with the 20D and  
> stitch
> them together, to get any resolution you want. Bit of a learning  
> curve, but
> the results are stunning. And you don't pay for all that film and
> processing.
>
> --
>
> Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul mailto:pderocco@ix. <mailto:pderocco%40ix.netcom.com> netcom.com
>
>
>
>
>
> [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
>
>
>
>

And why take both? Because I shoot both film and digital. I know both. Scan
my own, etc.  Sometimes you just have to do it for your self before you know
what it is that you want. 

Simple as that.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam
> McCandless
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 8:23 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] choices
> 
> 
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Eric Neilsen wrote:
> 
> > Please don't take this the wrong way, but YOU are really the only
> > person
> > here that can answer that for you. Get your ass of the sofa, shoot
> > some B&W,
> > your choice but the bigger the grain , the harder your scanning
> > life, shoot
> > some color like porta, or velvia, and get the stuff scanned. You
> > will of
> > course be at the mercy of the scan operator so deal with it. Or
> > better yet,
> > learn to scan it yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> > There are just so many issues to address that separately they don't
> > mean
> > much and together is really your job. There have been some ok
> > suggestions,
> > but it will come down to what do you NORAMLLY do, what are you BEST
> > at, and
> > WHAT do you really want to accomplish?
> >
> >
> >
> >  We are all long past the days of handing your film off to the lab and
> > expecting "a" result. Printers, inks, papers, cameras, etc have
> > changed so
> > often that what is written today is at a best guess tomorrow.
> >
> >
> >
> > If it were me, I'd buck up and take both digital and film. Coverage
> > man!
> > Make sure you have something reliable with you that doesn't run out
> > of juice
> > or hutspha (sp).
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Neilsen Photography
> >
> > 4101 Commerce Street
> >
> > Suite 9
> >
> > Dallas, TX 75226
> >
> > http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
> >
> > http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> >
> > Skype ejprinter
> >
> >   _____
> >
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > Paul D.
> > DeRocco
> > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 5:39 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] choices
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: TFielder
> >>
> >> I'm heading out to Utah this weekend and to the Sierra's next month.
> >> I understand that film scans may likely result in better data files
> >> for printing. I have a Canon 20D; Nikon 35 mm film and a medium
> >> format film camera. My question is, should I shoot the 35 mm and get
> >> high resolution scans or shoot with the median format? After
> >> scanning, will the medium format platform out-perform the data I can
> >> get from the 35 mm sufficient to offset the additional effort?
> >
> > For landscapes, you can also shoot multiple images with the 20D and
> > stitch
> > them together, to get any resolution you want. Bit of a learning
> > curve, but
> > the results are stunning. And you don't pay for all that film and
> > processing.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
> > Paul mailto:pderocco@ix. <mailto:pderocco%40ix.netcom.com> netcom.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>