Digital BW, The Print

I'm shooting a Mamiya 7ii w/ 6x7cm film and scan w/ a Microtek 120 MF 
scanner w/ Silverfast. The problem is when I scan at 4000 ppi optical 
at 16 bit my resulting files are 500+ MB, and that is w/o adjustment 
layers in the post processing stage which can be 1 gb+!  The quality 
BTW is usually better than my 5D Canon... I've tested downsampling to 
3200 and even 2400 ppi and I really can't see a difference which brings 
it down nearly half the file size.  I'm not even sure I can see a 
differnce when downsampling from 16 bit to 8 bit if I don't do much 
post processing. I'm just wondering what other folks do to keep there 
files sizes reasonable and still attain the highest quality...? 

Thanks in advance!
SteveB

sounds like you may be in RGB, try grayscale for files 1/3 that size.
If you are concerned about what channel is used, there is a setting in
Silverfast allowing your preference- 
Tyler

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

>
> I'm shooting a Mamiya 7ii w/ 6x7cm film and scan w/ a Microtek 120 MF 
> scanner w/ Silverfast. The problem is when I scan at 4000 ppi optical 
> at 16 bit my resulting files are 500+ MB, and that is w/o adjustment 
> layers in the post processing stage which can be 1 gb+!  The quality 
> BTW is usually better than my 5D Canon... I've tested downsampling to 
> 3200 and even 2400 ppi and I really can't see a difference which brings 
> it down nearly half the file size.  I'm not even sure I can see a 
> differnce when downsampling from 16 bit to 8 bit if I don't do much 
> post processing. I'm just wondering what other folks do to keep there 
> files sizes reasonable and still attain the highest quality...? 
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> SteveB
>

Because I shoot color film typically and use it for for both color 
and B&W, when I convert some to B&W in RGB mode, then save as  
grayscale -- duh! Thanks! 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> sounds like you may be in RGB, try grayscale for files 1/3 that 
size.
> If you are concerned about what channel is used, there is a setting 
in
> Silverfast allowing your preference- 
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "steveabrink"
> <steveabrink@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm shooting a Mamiya 7ii w/ 6x7cm film and scan w/ a Microtek 
120 MF 
> > scanner w/ Silverfast. The problem is when I scan at 4000 ppi 
optical 
> > at 16 bit my resulting files are 500+ MB, and that is w/o 
adjustment 
> > layers in the post processing stage which can be 1 gb+!  The 
quality 
> > BTW is usually better than my 5D Canon... I've tested 
downsampling to 
> > 3200 and even 2400 ppi and I really can't see a difference which 
brings 
> > it down nearly half the file size.  I'm not even sure I can see a 
> > differnce when downsampling from 16 bit to 8 bit if I don't do 
much 
> > post processing. I'm just wondering what other folks do to keep 
there 

> > files sizes reasonable and still attain the highest quality...? 
> > 
> > Thanks in advance!
> > SteveB
> >
>

You can't have both. You have to make the scarafice. Off-hand, JPEG compression might be your best bet.

gar

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 10/7/2008 at 2:30 AM steveabrink wrote:

>I'm shooting a Mamiya 7ii w/ 6x7cm film and scan w/ a Microtek 120 MF 
>scanner w/ Silverfast. The problem is when I scan at 4000 ppi optical 
>at 16 bit my resulting files are 500+ MB, and that is w/o adjustment 
>layers in the post processing stage which can be 1 gb+!  The quality 
>BTW is usually better than my 5D Canon... I've tested downsampling to 
>3200 and even 2400 ppi and I really can't see a difference which brings 
>it down nearly half the file size.  I'm not even sure I can see a 
>differnce when downsampling from 16 bit to 8 bit if I don't do much 
>post processing. I'm just wondering what other folks do to keep there 
>files sizes reasonable and still attain the highest quality...? 
>
>Thanks in advance!
>SteveB   
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>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
>
>
>

steveabrink wrote:
> I'm shooting a Mamiya 7ii w/ 6x7cm film and scan w/ a Microtek 120 MF 
> scanner w/ Silverfast. The problem is when I scan at 4000 ppi optical 
> at 16 bit my resulting files are 500+ MB, and that is w/o adjustment 
> layers in the post processing stage which can be 1 gb+!  The quality 
> BTW is usually better than my 5D Canon... I've tested downsampling to 
> 3200 and even 2400 ppi and I really can't see a difference which brings 
> it down nearly half the file size.  I'm not even sure I can see a 
> differnce when downsampling from 16 bit to 8 bit if I don't do much 
> post processing. I'm just wondering what other folks do to keep there 
> files sizes reasonable and still attain the highest quality...? 
>
> Thanks in advance!
> SteveB   
>   

I routinely scan my 5x4 B&W negatives to about 11x enlargement so I can 
have some small amount of room to clean up the rebates and perhaps 
correct for some in-camera rotation, etc. and still make a 125x100 cm 
print at 120ppcm. A 16 bit grayscale scan comes out to 350 MB or so. 
This is a size that Photoshop easily handles on my six year old (!) PC 
running win2k with 3GB of memory.

Scan files from color negatives are routinely 3x that size, and are 
considerably worse to deal with in Photoshop. So I feel your pain.

But it's the price of quality. The reason I'm using LF is to get the 
image quality I want. I've run the experiments making scans at different 
scanner resolutions, making prints from those scans and comparing the 
prints, and found that the scans described above are necessary for me to 
make prints of the quality I want. That they are difficult to deal with 
in Photoshop is just part of the price I have to pay to make a print of 
the quality I want to make.
--
Bruce Watson

Just over 1GB?  My layered master files are very often 2-3GB each,  
and my mentor
Charles Cramer's, with typically 50 layers on, can be over 5GB!

Buy a Mac Pro with 32GB RAM and a dedicated RAID 0 (Stripped)  
Photoshop scratch
disk and you will have no problems working on files these big.  Wow I  
am just kidding
since Photoshop does not allocate more than 4GB memory on a 32-bit  
machine.  A
Mac Pro with 8GB RAM ($350 now a days) would be adequate.

--------------------------------------------------------------
LEPING ZHA, Ph.D.
San Mateo, CA 94403, U.S.A.
(650)255-8968 (Cell) / (650)624-2211 (Day)
leping@... / www.lepingzha.com
--------------------------------------------------------------




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

Well this is the B&W  list, and your stated desire was the highest
quality, so one assumes you're shooting B&W film. As Bruce suggests,
for that level of quality larger file sizes are just an accepted fact
of life. 
However you may find this workaround helpful, I've posted it here before-

Convert to 8 bit in PS and do a "save as", leaving the 16 bit intact.
Do all your adjustment layering and proofing from the lower bit
version. When happy, drag all those layers and masks as a group over
to your 16 bit, flatten and save as a final printer file.

Perhaps you will find that helpful, I do it all the time here.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/


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

>
> Because I shoot color film typically and use it for for both color 
> and B&W, when I convert some to B&W in RGB mode, then save as  
> grayscale -- duh! Thanks! 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
> <tyler@> wrote:
> >
> > sounds like you may be in RGB, try grayscale for files 1/3 that 
> size.
> > If you are concerned about what channel is used, there is a setting 
> in
> > Silverfast allowing your preference- 
> > Tyler
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "steveabrink"
> > <steveabrink@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm shooting a Mamiya 7ii w/ 6x7cm film and scan w/ a Microtek 
> 120 MF 
> > > scanner w/ Silverfast. The problem is when I scan at 4000 ppi 
> optical 
> > > at 16 bit my resulting files are 500+ MB, and that is w/o 
> adjustment 
> > > layers in the post processing stage which can be 1 gb+!  The 
> quality 
> > > BTW is usually better than my 5D Canon... I've tested 
> downsampling to 
> > > 3200 and even 2400 ppi and I really can't see a difference which 
> brings 
> > > it down nearly half the file size.  I'm not even sure I can see a 
> > > differnce when downsampling from 16 bit to 8 bit if I don't do 
> much 
> > > post processing. I'm just wondering what other folks do to keep 
> there 
> > > files sizes reasonable and still attain the highest quality...? 
> > > 
> > > Thanks in advance!
> > > SteveB
> > >
> >
>

Hi Tyler,
Changing subject somewhat here but I wanted to respond to your last 
email.  Not wanting to pick a nit but I believe that opinions are 
changing as to whether the highest quality B&W print has to originate 
from B&W film?

I have concluded (as I believe others have also) that the additional 
data in color captures (digital or transparency) lend themselves to 
the possibility of better B&W prints then do B&W film?

I realize that this may be speculation on my part, but it sure 
appears that way to me.

Nothing wrong with B&W film.  I captured that way for many years.  
Just that now I believe that the Photoshop capabilities available to 
images that start out life as color can provide many more available 
expressions then straight B&W from the outset.

Just my opinion.  Don't want new users to be left with the opinion 
that you have to start out with B&W film to have a great B&W print.  
Thanks!

Bruce
http://BruceVarner.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:

>
> Well this is the B&W  list, and your stated desire was the highest
> quality, so one assumes you're shooting B&W film. As Bruce suggests,
> for that level of quality larger file sizes are just an accepted 
>fact of life...........

It depends on what you consider "best". If the options available when
converting to B&W fom a color source are most important, than that
might be called best. But as someone who scans a variety of film,
color and B&W, positive and neg, on a variety of scanners, now a drum,
I can say that my definition of B&W quality from film is higher from
B&W film than color. Resolution, grian, scanner performance, etc. are
all higher from more or less same ISO films.

If one opens the discussion up to capture, it changes entirely.

If the topic changes to how to best achieve the highest personal
artistic B&W results, no question a disciplined focused approach,
committing to an image while shooting and selecting the materials
suited to that helps me do my best work, but that is personal.

If I was on assignment, or shooting for others for whatever reason,
I'd leave options open for them later, but then I probably wouldn't be
shooting film anyway, so RGB is a given.

If, for you, conversion options are more important than the finickiest
adherence to photographic image structure is best, then I understand.
But for negs, my experience is that scans from B&W film are of higher
photographic quality then color.
Bruce shoots and drum scans both as well, so may have additional input.

Hope that is clearer.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/


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

>
> Hi Tyler,
> Changing subject somewhat here but I wanted to respond to your last 
> email.  Not wanting to pick a nit but I believe that opinions are 
> changing as to whether the highest quality B&W print has to originate 
> from B&W film?
> 
> I have concluded (as I believe others have also) that the additional 
> data in color captures (digital or transparency) lend themselves to 
> the possibility of better B&W prints then do B&W film?
> 
> I realize that this may be speculation on my part, but it sure 
> appears that way to me.
> 
> Nothing wrong with B&W film.  I captured that way for many years.  
> Just that now I believe that the Photoshop capabilities available to 
> images that start out life as color can provide many more available 
> expressions then straight B&W from the outset.
> 
> Just my opinion.  Don't want new users to be left with the opinion 
> that you have to start out with B&W film to have a great B&W print.  
> Thanks!
> 
> Bruce
> http://BruceVarner.com
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
> <tyler@> wrote:
> >
> > Well this is the B&W  list, and your stated desire was the highest
> > quality, so one assumes you're shooting B&W film. As Bruce suggests,
> > for that level of quality larger file sizes are just an accepted 
> >fact of life...........
>

btvarner wrote:
> Hi Tyler,
> Changing subject somewhat here but I wanted to respond to your last 
> email.  Not wanting to pick a nit but I believe that opinions are 
> changing as to whether the highest quality B&W print has to originate 
> from B&W film?
>
> I have concluded (as I believe others have also) that the additional 
> data in color captures (digital or transparency) lend themselves to 
> the possibility of better B&W prints then do B&W film?

I'm not Tyler, but I can give you some thoughts on this. First, B&W 
films have different spectral responses than do color films. This is 
particularly true of a film like Fuji Acros. It's hard to replicate the 
look of most B&W films when using color films simply because of this 
difference. IOW it's more than you can achieve with channel mixer by itself.

Second, B&W films have far fewer layers than color films. This causes 
two things. First, for a given ISO rating, the B&W film will exhibit 
less graininess. Second, for a given ISO rating the B&W film will be 
sharper. If you are willing to give up a stop or more you can match the 
graininess with a slower color film. But it's hard to imagine how to 
match that last bit of sharpness.

Third, color films are hard to use with development controls. Especially 
C-41 which you can't really pull process at all without color shifting. 
So you sacrifice some control when you use color.

Forth, B&W films are less expensive to buy, and less expensive to 
process than color films.

Fifth, B&W films, especially t-grain films, have characteristic curves 
with most developers that are basically flat for as much subject 
brightness range (SBR) as you can throw at them. Said another way, they 
have huge dynamic range (IIRC there was a Kodak paper that claimed that 
100Tmax was flat and linear out 20+ stops, not that you can actually use 
that range outside the lab). Tranny films are crippled in comparison. 
Color negative films are considerably closer to B&W in this regard but 
still have some problems with color shifting when forced to handle 
really large SBRs.

Sixth, and most shaky on this list, is the psychology of it. Some of us 
see B&W better when using B&W films. I don't know why. But I know it's 
true. I speculate that it's learning to see beyond the distraction of 
color -- to see the visual rhythms, structures, harmonies that are under 
the color. And knowing you are making a color capture makes that more 
difficult to do for some reason.

I'm sure I could keep writing, but I'm also sure that anyone who made it 
this far is tired of readin'. So I'll let it rest ;-)

I'm not saying that anyone is wrong to use their favorite color film as 
the basis for B&W prints. You should do what works for you and that with 
which you are most comfortable. One can certainly make a high quality 
B&W print from a color capture. But if one truly wants the "highest 
quality B&W print" B&W films are still king of the hill.
--
Bruce Watson

Bruce,

 

I'm a 5x4 B&W photographer.  Many of my more recent images are created in
extremes of subject brightness.  And I want detail all the way from the
deepest shadows to the brightest highlights.  I use 100Tmax and the new
400Tmax and with these films and my processing and scanning workflow I can
capture on film and record in a TIFF file a 17 to 18 stop subject brightness
range from a single exposure (as long as I judge my exposure correctly).
This extreme is not a common occurrence but it does illustrate just what an
amazing medium is B&W film.  Can colour film do that for me?  Certainly
digital; sensors can't.  I pose the question because I suspect it cannot
come near that, and for me and my particular requirements that is a critical
question.  I'm not interested (in my core photographic activities) in what I
could do with multiple exposures and HDR and all that faffing about.

 

For me, your comment about more data in colour capture (undeniable I
suppose) presupposes that you are less interested in the extremes of shadow
and highlight detail than me.  So my question is posed to find out if I
could get even more if I used colour film.

 

OK - I could test to find out for myself, perhaps I should.  The trouble is,
I have total personal control over my B&W processing but I'd have to farm
out the colour processing and from my limited experience, that's a road I'd
not want to travel.

 

Steve Gledhill

www.virtuallygrey.co.uk <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/> 

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of btvarner
Sent: 07 October 2008 18:55
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...

 

Hi Tyler,
Changing subject somewhat here but I wanted to respond to your last 
email. Not wanting to pick a nit but I believe that opinions are 
changing as to whether the highest quality B&W print has to originate 
from B&W film?

I have concluded (as I believe others have also) that the additional 
data in color captures (digital or transparency) lend themselves to 
the possibility of better B&W prints then do B&W film?

I realize that this may be speculation on my part, but it sure 
appears that way to me.

Nothing wrong with B&W film. I captured that way for many years. 
Just that now I believe that the Photoshop capabilities available to 
images that start out life as color can provide many more available 
expressions then straight B&W from the outset.

Just my opinion. Don't want new users to be left with the opinion 
that you have to start out with B&W film to have a great B&W print. 
Thanks!

Bruce
http://BruceVarner.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> Well this is the B&W list, and your stated desire was the highest
> quality, so one assumes you're shooting B&W film. As Bruce suggests,
> for that level of quality larger file sizes are just an accepted 
>fact of life........... 



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

On 7 Oct 2008, at 11:42 AM, Bruce Watson wrote:

> Sixth, and most shaky on this list, is the psychology of it. Some of  
> us
> see B&W better when using B&W films. I don't know why. But I know it's
> true. I speculate that it's learning to see beyond the distraction of
> color -- to see the visual rhythms, structures, harmonies that are  
> under
> the color. And knowing you are making a color capture makes that more
> difficult to do for some reason.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to feel this way!  I've always found it  
strange, but true, that what I see through the viewfinder changes  
depending on whether I've got B&W or color film loaded, or whether I'm  
using a digital sensor.

--John

steveabrink wrote:
> I'm shooting a Mamiya 7ii w/ 6x7cm film and scan w/ a Microtek 120 MF 
> scanner w/ Silverfast. The problem is when I scan at 4000 ppi optical 
> at 16 bit my resulting files are 500+ MB, and that is w/o adjustment 
> layers in the post processing stage which can be 1 gb+!  The quality 
> BTW is usually better than my 5D Canon... I've tested downsampling to 
> 3200 and even 2400 ppi and I really can't see a difference which brings 
> it down nearly half the file size.  I'm not even sure I can see a 
> differnce when downsampling from 16 bit to 8 bit if I don't do much 
> post processing. I'm just wondering what other folks do to keep there 
> files sizes reasonable and still attain the highest quality...? 

Did you test both file sizes 4000 and 2400 PPI on really big
prints say 4 feet wide and notice no difference ?
If they are equal, do you get enough information from your
scanner at 4000 PPI ?
If I recall it correctly the scanner shares the same Kodak
trilinear sensor that the Nikon 8000 has and the Nikon is
tested on resolution and delivers between 3600 and 3800 PPI
true resolution.
Another test, upsample the 2400 PPI one to 4000 again and
check detail of the original 4000 PPI scan to detail of the
converted 4000 PPI scan.
The scanner optics filthy meanwhile ?

In other words, there should be 4000 PPI  information
available in Mamiya 7 II film frames and the files will be
huge.

If the quality is usually better than the 5D Canon you could 
consider upgrading to the 5D Mark II which should bridge 
that last IQ difference you see and could make the Mamiya + 
Microtek + old 5D obsolete and deliver smaller files at the 
same time. The Mamiya + lenses + Microtek + old  5D must 
bring you close to the purchasing price of the new 5D. Maybe 
not the answer you were expecting ..........


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

btvarner wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Tyler,
> Changing subject somewhat here but I wanted to respond to your last
> email. Not wanting to pick a nit but I believe that opinions are
> changing as to whether the highest quality B&W print has to originate
> from B&W film?

In my experience, the look of traditional B&W is very difficult to
credibly achieve by any scheme other than initially capturing on
B&W film.

The grain structure and associated acuteness are particularly
critical; the specific spectral responses and density curves
are also important, though perhaps possible to adjust from a
color capture.

Dana

Sorry to jump in to a private conversation Steve, but how do you obtain 17
stops range. When I was doing large format B&W using the zone system, the
difference from dead black to paper white was 8/9 zones = 8/9 stops.
Admittedly I am a dinosaur of the TRI-X,  HC-110 era and have been out of
the darkroom for some time but 17 full stops sounds miraculous.

Roger


On 10/7/08 2:47 PM, "Steve Gledhill" <stephengledhill@...> wrote:

>  
>  
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> I'm a 5x4 B&W photographer.  Many of my more recent images are created in
> extremes of subject brightness.  And I want detail all the way from the
> deepest shadows to the brightest highlights.  I use 100Tmax and the new
> 400Tmax and with these films and my processing and scanning workflow I can
> capture on film and record in a TIFF file a 17 to 18 stop subject brightness
> range from a single exposure (as long as I judge my exposure correctly).
> This extreme is not a common occurrence but it does illustrate just what an
> amazing medium is B&W film.  Can colour film do that for me?  Certainly
> digital; sensors can't.  I pose the question because I suspect it cannot
> come near that, and for me and my particular requirements that is a critical
> question.  I'm not interested (in my core photographic activities) in what I
> could do with multiple exposures and HDR and all that faffing about.
> 
> For me, your comment about more data in colour capture (undeniable I
> suppose) presupposes that you are less interested in the extremes of shadow
> and highlight detail than me.  So my question is posed to find out if I
> could get even more if I used colour film.
> 
> OK - I could test to find out for myself, perhaps I should.  The trouble is,
> I have total personal control over my B&W processing but I'd have to farm
> out the colour processing and from my limited experience, that's a road I'd
> not want to travel.
> 
> Steve Gledhill
> 
> www.virtuallygrey.co.uk <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/>
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> btvarner
> Sent: 07 October 2008 18:55
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
> 
> Hi Tyler,
> Changing subject somewhat here but I wanted to respond to your last
> email. Not wanting to pick a nit but I believe that opinions are
> changing as to whether the highest quality B&W print has to originate
> from B&W film?
> 
> I have concluded (as I believe others have also) that the additional
> data in color captures (digital or transparency) lend themselves to
> the possibility of better B&W prints then do B&W film?
> 
> I realize that this may be speculation on my part, but it sure
> appears that way to me.
> 
> Nothing wrong with B&W film. I captured that way for many years.
> Just that now I believe that the Photoshop capabilities available to
> images that start out life as color can provide many more available
> expressions then straight B&W from the outset.
> 
> Just my opinion. Don't want new users to be left with the opinion
> that you have to start out with B&W film to have a great B&W print.
> Thanks!
> 
> Bruce
> http://BruceVarner.com
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Well this is the B&W list, and your stated desire was the highest
>> > quality, so one assumes you're shooting B&W film. As Bruce suggests,
>> > for that level of quality larger file sizes are just an accepted
>> >fact of life...........
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>  
>     



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

HI John, it's interesting to me that Bruce and I were both busily
writing on this same issue in reply. It's a different thread than the
OP's original questions, but it's a very big deal.
Seeing, and all the issues that impact it positively and negatively,
is really what it's all about. We used to call it camerawork.
Many artists in all areas find their results and working level much
higher when severely limiting and focusing their options to those
applicable to the task at hand...
I've become more and more convinced about this over the years. Too
many guitars, too many stomp boxes, too many cameras, films,
applications, filters, etc etc.

It's a problem in digital sometimes... too many options to see
clearly... the forest and trees dilemma.
Tyler



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, John Labovitz
<johnl@...> wrote:

>
> On 7 Oct 2008, at 11:42 AM, Bruce Watson wrote:
> 
> > Sixth, and most shaky on this list, is the psychology of it. Some of  
> > us
> > see B&W better when using B&W films. I don't know why. But I know it's
> > true. I speculate that it's learning to see beyond the distraction of
> > color -- to see the visual rhythms, structures, harmonies that are  
> > under
> > the color. And knowing you are making a color capture makes that more
> > difficult to do for some reason.
> 
> I'm glad I'm not the only one to feel this way!  I've always found it  
> strange, but true, that what I see through the viewfinder changes  
> depending on whether I've got B&W or color film loaded, or whether I'm  
> using a digital sensor.
> 
> --John
>

Dear Roger,

That tonal range happens to be available on the B&W film...

jim k




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

Tyler, did you ever use a Wratten 90 as a viewing filter? When I was doing
large format B&W I found that could be useful in helping to appreciate the
scene monochromatically. Not a magic bullet but sometimes useful and helped
save film on occasion.

Roger


On 10/7/08 3:36 PM, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> wrote:

>  
>  
> 
> HI John, it's interesting to me that Bruce and I were both busily
> writing on this same issue in reply. It's a different thread than the
> OP's original questions, but it's a very big deal.
> Seeing, and all the issues that impact it positively and negatively,
> is really what it's all about. We used to call it camerawork.
> Many artists in all areas find their results and working level much
> higher when severely limiting and focusing their options to those
> applicable to the task at hand...
> I've become more and more convinced about this over the years. Too
> many guitars, too many stomp boxes, too many cameras, films,
> applications, filters, etc etc.
> 
> It's a problem in digital sometimes... too many options to see
> clearly... the forest and trees dilemma.
> Tyler



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

> Did you test both file sizes 4000 and 2400 PPI on really big
> prints say 4 feet wide and notice no difference ?
I was downsampling to 3200ppi typically & oocasiaonlly to 2400 ppi 
from 4000ppi.  With prints I cannot, but there is tiny differnce at 
100%+ enlaregment w/ 2400 downsampling...   

> If they are equal, do you get enough information from your
> scanner at 4000 PPI ?
Your right, I can't see a differnce past 3600 ppi but none the less 
scan at 4000 ppi & downsample. 

Concerning upsampling, good question, I ahve not tried this 
upsampling test. I'll take a look at that.

Actually, I'm doing just that. I'm selling my 5D and will be 
ordering a 5D mkii soon even though I don't like the video feature. 
Yes, I plan on comparing the mamiya & microtek combination. I 
suspect the Canon mkii will of course be much cleaner file wise, but 
just a tiny bit better in resolution.  We'll see! I'm keeping my 
Mamiya because I just enjoy shooting it -- even if very 
occasionally.  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<edinkla@...> wrote:
>
> steveabrink wrote:
> > I'm shooting a Mamiya 7ii w/ 6x7cm film and scan w/ a Microtek 
120 MF 
> > scanner w/ Silverfast. The problem is when I scan at 4000 ppi 
optical 
> > at 16 bit my resulting files are 500+ MB, and that is w/o 
adjustment 
> > layers in the post processing stage which can be 1 gb+!  The 
quality 
> > BTW is usually better than my 5D Canon... I've tested 
downsampling to 
> > 3200 and even 2400 ppi and I really can't see a difference which 
brings 
> > it down nearly half the file size.  I'm not even sure I can see 
a 
> > differnce when downsampling from 16 bit to 8 bit if I don't do 
much 
> > post processing. I'm just wondering what other folks do to keep 
there 

> > files sizes reasonable and still attain the highest quality...? 
> 
> Did you test both file sizes 4000 and 2400 PPI on really big
> prints say 4 feet wide and notice no difference ?
> If they are equal, do you get enough information from your
> scanner at 4000 PPI ?
> If I recall it correctly the scanner shares the same Kodak
> trilinear sensor that the Nikon 8000 has and the Nikon is
> tested on resolution and delivers between 3600 and 3800 PPI
> true resolution.
> Another test, upsample the 2400 PPI one to 4000 again and
> check detail of the original 4000 PPI scan to detail of the
> converted 4000 PPI scan.
> The scanner optics filthy meanwhile ?
> 
> In other words, there should be 4000 PPI  information
> available in Mamiya 7 II film frames and the files will be
> huge.
> 
> If the quality is usually better than the 5D Canon you could 
> consider upgrading to the 5D Mark II which should bridge 
> that last IQ difference you see and could make the Mamiya + 
> Microtek + old 5D obsolete and deliver smaller files at the 
> same time. The Mamiya + lenses + Microtek + old  5D must 
> bring you close to the purchasing price of the new 5D. Maybe 
> not the answer you were expecting ..........
> 
> 
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst
> 
> 
> |  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
> |     www.pigment-print.com    |
> |             ( unvollendet )            |
>

Roger,

 

It’s not a paper question, it’s a film and scanning question.  The film is inherently capable of capturing that huge SBR - fact.  I accomplish this by processing in XTOL @ 1+2 @ 24C for 9 minutes – continuous agitation.  The next step requires the scanner to be able to scan high density negatives – or more specifically, areas of high density – the highlights.  My Epson V700 does that for me.  The scanner captures the whole range from clear film base to the maximum density of the negative and represents it in the TIFF file as a full range 16-bit greyscale scan.  So the huge SBR in the original scene is ‘compressed’ (via my workflow) into the range my paper is capable of – i.e. maximum ink black to paper white.

 

This is really a rehashing of the ‘expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights’.  In my workflow it becomes ‘expose for the shadows and scan for the highlights’.  I’ve abandoned processing N+ and N-.  Scanning for the highlights is my approach to handling that now.

 

Steve Gledhill

www.virtuallygrey.co.uk <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/> 

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Sopher
Sent: 07 October 2008 20:34
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...

 

Sorry to jump in to a private conversation Steve, but how do you obtain 17
stops range. When I was doing large format B&W using the zone system, the
difference from dead black to paper white was 8/9 zones = 8/9 stops.
Admittedly I am a dinosaur of the TRI-X, HC-110 era and have been out of
the darkroom for some time but 17 full stops sounds miraculous.

Roger 



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

Steve Gledhill wrote:
> The next step requires the scanner to be able to scan high 
> density negatives \u2013 or more specifically, areas of high density \u2013 the 
> highlights. My Epson V700 does that for me. The scanner captures the 
> whole range from clear film base to the maximum density of the negative 
> and represents it in the TIFF file as a full range 16-bit greyscale 
> scan. So the huge SBR in the original scene is \u2018compressed\u2019 (via my 
> workflow) into the range my paper is capable of \u2013 i.e. maximum ink black 
> to paper white.

Do you really capture 17-stops of range using a 16-bit TIFF?

Dana

Of course, I was thinking silver halide paper printing, not the film itself;
Senile old fudd that I am. Apples and oranges.

Roger


On 10/7/08 4:11 PM, "Steve Gledhill" <stephengledhill@...> wrote:

>  
>  
> 
> Roger,
> 
> It’s not a paper question, it’s a film and scanning question.  The film is
> inherently capable of capturing that huge SBR - fact.  I accomplish this by
> processing in XTOL @ 1+2 @ 24C for 9 minutes – continuous agitation.  The next
> step requires the scanner to be able to scan high density negatives – or more
> specifically, areas of high density – the highlights.  My Epson V700 does that
> for me.  The scanner captures the whole range from clear film base to the
> maximum density of the negative and represents it in the TIFF file as a full
> range 16-bit greyscale scan.  So the huge SBR in the original scene is
> ‘compressed’ (via my workflow) into the range my paper is capable of – i.e.
> maximum ink black to paper white.
> 
> This is really a rehashing of the ‘expose for the shadows and develop for the
> highlights’.  In my workflow it becomes ‘expose for the shadows and scan for
> the highlights’.  I’ve abandoned processing N+ and N-.  Scanning for the
> highlights is my approach to handling that now.
> 
> Steve Gledhill
> 
> www.virtuallygrey.co.uk <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/>
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Roger
> Sopher
> Sent: 07 October 2008 20:34
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF
> ...
> 
> Sorry to jump in to a private conversation Steve, but how do you obtain 17
> stops range. When I was doing large format B&W using the zone system, the
> difference from dead black to paper white was 8/9 zones = 8/9 stops.
> Admittedly I am a dinosaur of the TRI-X, HC-110 era and have been out of
> the darkroom for some time but 17 full stops sounds miraculous.
> 
> Roger 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>  
>     



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

Dana,

 

Not many images have that range – but lately I’ve been photographing in cathedrals where the deep interior shadows through to the sunlit stained glass windows certainly have that challenge.  So ... yes, I really do.

 

Steve Gledhill

www.virtuallygrey.co.uk <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/> 

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dana H. Myers
Sent: 07 October 2008 21:21
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...

 

Steve Gledhill wrote:
> The next step requires the scanner to be able to scan high 
> density negatives – or more specifically, areas of high density – the 
> highlights. My Epson V700 does that for me. The scanner captures the 
> whole range from clear film base to the maximum density of the negative 
> and represents it in the TIFF file as a full range 16-bit greyscale 
> scan. So the huge SBR in the original scene is ‘compressed’ (via my 
> workflow) into the range my paper is capable of – i.e. maximum ink black 
> to paper white.

Do you really capture 17-stops of range using a 16-bit TIFF?

Dana 



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

Steve Gledhill wrote:
> 
> 
> Dana,
> 
> Not many images have that range \u2013 but lately I\u2019ve been photographing in 
> cathedrals where the deep interior shadows through to the sunlit stained 
> glass windows certainly have that challenge. So ... yes, I really do.

... and you really capture 17 stops of range in 16 bits?
How do you technically achieve that?  Isn't the TIFF encoding
a linear value?  In which case, I wouldn't expect more than
16 stops (at best) to be possible in the TIFF file, right?

Dana

Sorry but I’m going to make some simple statement here – beyond that you’ll have to ask others.  The 17 stops are handled by the film and the way I process it prior it to going anywhere near a scanner.  The scanner simply deals with scanning of a piece of film that has everything from clear film base through to dense areas of highlights.  No real difference from anyone else’s negative film.  It’s not a technical question - TIFF encoding doesn’t enter into it any more that it does for anyone else who scans their film.

 

Steve

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dana H. Myers
Sent: 07 October 2008 21:40
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...

 

Steve Gledhill wrote:
> 
> 
> Dana,
> 
> Not many images have that range – but lately I’ve been photographing in 
> cathedrals where the deep interior shadows through to the sunlit stained 
> glass windows certainly have that challenge. So ... yes, I really do.

.... and you really capture 17 stops of range in 16 bits?
How do you technically achieve that? Isn't the TIFF encoding
a linear value? In which case, I wouldn't expect more than
16 stops (at best) to be possible in the TIFF file, right?

Dana 



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

But, anything over 16 can't be represented in a 16 bit tiff file.
�
TB


--- On Tue, 10/7/08, Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@...> wrote:

From: Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@...>
Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 1:31 PM






Dana,

Not many images have that range – but lately I’ve been photographing in cathedrals where the deep interior shadows through to the sunlit stained glass windows certainly have that challenge. So ... yes, I really do.

Steve Gledhill

www.virtuallygrey. co.uk <http://www.virtuall ygrey.co. uk/> 

From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Dana H. Myers
Sent: 07 October 2008 21:21
To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...

Steve Gledhill wrote:
> The next step requires the scanner to be able to scan high 
> density negatives – or more specifically, areas of high density – the 
> highlights. My Epson V700 does that for me. The scanner captures the 
> whole range from clear film base to the maximum density of the negative 
> and represents it in the TIFF file as a full range 16-bit greyscale 
> scan. So the huge SBR in the original scene is ‘compressed’ (via my 
> workflow) into the range my paper is capable of – i.e. maximum ink black 
> to paper white.

Do you really capture 17-stops of range using a 16-bit TIFF?

Dana 

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

 













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

I resist the t-grain films, but my opton tessar gives me a look I don't get with anything else on tmax100. My solutions are warm, so density is different.

The film is worth investigating. They do lay pretty flat.

gar

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 10/7/2008 at 3:34 PM Roger Sopher wrote:

>Sorry to jump in to a private conversation Steve, but how do you obtain 17
>stops range. When I was doing large format B&W using the zone system, the
>difference from dead black to paper white was 8/9 zones = 8/9 stops.
>Admittedly I am a dinosaur of the TRI-X,  HC-110 era and have been out of
>the darkroom for some time but 17 full stops sounds miraculous.
>
>Roger
>
>
>On 10/7/08 2:47 PM, "Steve Gledhill" <stephengledhill@...> wrote:
>
>>  
>>

I'm not sure where this comes from.  16 bits of data gives 2 to the power of
16 shades of grey, ie 65,536 of them.  Should be plenty to divide by 17
stops, particularly as the relationship between a stop and a set of shades
of grey is arbitrary - you can map them how you like with either the scanner
software or Photoshop.  What does surprise me is that Steve gets this from
an Epson V700, however I've seen some of his images and he does undoubtedly
capture a very large SBR with detail at both ends so I'm sure he's right.

David Whistance

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tom
Baker
Sent: 07 October 2008 22:04
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...


But, anything over 16 can't be represented in a 16 bit tiff file.
\ufffd
TB


--- On Tue, 10/7/08, Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@...> wrote:

From: Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@...>
Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting
reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 1:31 PM






Dana,

Not many images have that range \u2013 but lately I\u2019ve been photographing in
cathedrals where the deep interior shadows through to the sunlit stained
glass windows certainly have that challenge. So ... yes, I really do.

Steve Gledhill

www.virtuallygrey. co.uk <http://www.virtuall ygrey.co. uk/>

From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Dana
H. Myers
Sent: 07 October 2008 21:21
To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting
reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...

Steve Gledhill wrote:
> The next step requires the scanner to be able to scan high
> density negatives \u2013 or more specifically, areas of high density \u2013 the
> highlights. My Epson V700 does that for me. The scanner captures the
> whole range from clear film base to the maximum density of the negative
> and represents it in the TIFF file as a full range 16-bit greyscale
> scan. So the huge SBR in the original scene is \u2018compressed\u2019 (via my
> workflow) into the range my paper is capable of \u2013 i.e. maximum ink black
> to paper white.

Do you really capture 17-stops of range using a 16-bit TIFF?

Dana

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















[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

Steve Gledhill wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> I'm a 5x4 B&W photographer.  Many of my more recent images are created in extremes of subject brightness.  And I want detail all the way from the deepest shadows to the brightest highlights.  I use 100Tmax and the new 400Tmax and with these films and my processing and scanning workflow I can capture on film and record in a TIFF file a 17 to 18 stop subject brightness range from a single exposure (as long as I judge my exposure correctly). This extreme is not a common occurrence but it does illustrate just what an amazing medium is B&W film.  Can colour film do that for me?  
Probably not. The most I've ever pushed color negative film was to make 
a photograph in bright mid-day sun in June (I'm in the northern 
hemisphere), of a white flower in the sun. And I wanted to pull good 
detail on the dark green leaves in the shadows. Metered about 11 stops 
black to white, about 9 stops of texture and detail. The film 
(160PortraVC one generation down from current) did fine. It held up nice 
and linear without color shifting in the highlights which would have 
been very easy to see (the white flower petals would have made it 
impossible to miss).

But I suspect that at some point it's going to start color shifting in 
interesting ways. You'll have to experiment and find out.
> Certainly digital sensors can't.  I pose the question because I suspect it cannot come near that, and for me and my particular requirements that is a critical question.  I'm not interested (in my core photographic activities) in what I could do with multiple exposures and HDR and all that faffing about.
>
> For me, your comment about more data in colour capture (undeniable I
> suppose) presupposes that you are less interested in the extremes of shadow and highlight detail than me.  So my question is posed to find out if I could get even more if I used colour film.
>   
I don't think that was me. If it was me I'd be saying something along 
the lines of more data isn't necessarily more information, a favorite 
point of mine ;-)
> OK - I could test to find out for myself, perhaps I should.  The trouble is, I have total personal control over my B&W processing but I'd have to farm out the colour processing and from my limited experience, that's a road I'd not want to travel.
>
> Steve Gledhill
>   
You'd have to do the testing for yourself to learn if it meets your 
personal requirements. No one else can answer that question for you. 
OTOH, you don't have to do any testing at all -- you could just keep 
shooting with TMY-2, enjoy what may be the highest performing B&W film 
ever commercially produced, and spend your time making your art instead 
of running tests.

Wish I could make myself follow my own advice!
--
Bruce Watson

Tom Baker wrote:
> But, anything over 16 can't be represented in a 16 bit tiff file.

Bingo.  Further, the A/D converters in the Epson V700 are
16-bits as well and I really don't know about the optical
chain in the V700; practically speaking, I'd be surprised if
more than 14 stops are actually being captured in the
scan.

Dana

>...  The 17 stops are handled by the film and the way I 
> process it prior it to going anywhere near a scanner.  
> The scanner simply deals with scanning of a piece of film ...

I've tested up to 14 stops even with my Technical Pan film -- the 
scene had 14 stops and one scan got it all.  On the other hand, the 
quality of the information might be higher if more than one exposure 
is used.  The very high densities on the film are not very conducive 
to quality either on the film or through the scan.

I think the range that one can capture on film and then scan is not 
necessarily limited by the Tiff file bit depth.  However, again, the 
quality of the information may be compromised, but with the thousands 
of steps we have with 16 bit files, there will be some separation of 
the values.

With sheet film or when hand holding it's probably not practical, but 
with roll film and on a tripod I routinely take a couple shots even 
when one might capture the extremes.  Two frames will simply do so 
with more quality.

Then again, I think the limited dynamic range that digital can 
capture directly is as serious a problem as the limited number of 
pixels.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

yes that's right, and I have seen Steve's prints as well. I don't
shoot interiors like Steve, but often back lit landscapes or other
difficult SBR. Whether or not a acanner can capture a wide film
density range has nothing to to with bit depth. Bit depth pertains to
how many levels between the extremes are described, not the extremes
themselves.

Many film developer combinations can handle extreme scene ranges. Then
the issue is exposing and processing into a range your scanner can
capture, usually not hard with negs. Once there, you could scan in 8
bit or 16 bit and get it all. After that the bit depth choice has to
do with process loss, editing, drivers, etc...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David Whistance"
<david.whistance@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure where this comes from.  16 bits of data gives 2 to the
power of
> 16 shades of grey, ie 65,536 of them.  Should be plenty to divide by 17
> stops, particularly as the relationship between a stop and a set of
shades
> of grey is arbitrary - you can map them how you like with either the
scanner
> software or Photoshop.  What does surprise me is that Steve gets
this from
> an Epson V700, however I've seen some of his images and he does
undoubtedly
> capture a very large SBR with detail at both ends so I'm sure he's
right.
> 
> David Whistance
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tom
> Baker
> Sent: 07 October 2008 22:04
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
> Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
> 
> 
> But, anything over 16 can't be represented in a 16 bit tiff file.
>  
> TB
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 10/7/08, Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@...> wrote:
> 
> From: Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@...>
> Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
Getting
> reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 1:31 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana,
> 
> Not many images have that range â€" but lately I’ve been
photographing in
> cathedrals where the deep interior shadows through to the sunlit stained
> glass windows certainly have that challenge. So ... yes, I really do.
> 
> Steve Gledhill
> 
> www.virtuallygrey. co.uk <http://www.virtuall ygrey.co. uk/>
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
Of Dana
> H. Myers
> Sent: 07 October 2008 21:21
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
Getting
> reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
> 
> Steve Gledhill wrote:
> > The next step requires the scanner to be able to scan high
> > density negatives â€" or more specifically, areas of high density
â€" the
> > highlights. My Epson V700 does that for me. The scanner captures the
> > whole range from clear film base to the maximum density of the
negative
> > and represents it in the TIFF file as a full range 16-bit greyscale
> > scan. So the huge SBR in the original scene is ‘compressed’
(via my
> > workflow) into the range my paper is capable of â€" i.e. maximum
ink black
> > to paper white.
> 
> Do you really capture 17-stops of range using a 16-bit TIFF?
> 
> Dana
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [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
>

David Whistance wrote:
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where this comes from. 16 bits of data gives 2 to the power of
> 16 shades of grey, ie 65,536 of them. Should be plenty to divide by 17
> stops, particularly as the relationship between a stop and a set of shades
> of grey is arbitrary - you can map them how you like with either the scanner
> software or Photoshop. What does surprise me is that Steve gets this from
> an Epson V700, however I've seen some of his images and he does undoubtedly
> capture a very large SBR with detail at both ends so I'm sure he's right.

No one is questioning that David gets a tremendous SBR; it's the
specific number that sounds too good to be true.

Dynamic range of a sample is limited to log-base-2(#levels).
This is a theoretical limit; it assumes a perfect sampling
chain.  Real-world performance is not going to be as good
in general, there's a noise floor in the electronic chain,
flare in the optics and limitations in the A/D converter itself.

So, in theory, the most that could be represented in a scan is
16 stops; practically speaking, it's probably more like 14 stops.

Cheers,
Dana

True.� But, if you really did capture 18 stops on film, the process of converting to digital will necessarily compress the tonal range.� Meaning you are giving up some tonal separation to the compression.� So, it would seem that it would be better to design your exposure/film/developing so that you get the best image on film.� One would have better control over that in the analog process than in the, probably, linear compression that the conversion to digital would impose.� I suppose, however, that you could apply curves in the scanning step to offer some control of where the digital compression would take place.
�
It's the same problem one would have when trying to print a negative with 18 stops, or even 12, in the darkroom.� Just different media.
�
Tom Baker

--- On Tue, 10/7/08, Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:

From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
Subject: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting reasonable scan
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 2:31 PM






yes that's right, and I have seen Steve's prints as well. I don't
shoot interiors like Steve, but often back lit landscapes or other
difficult SBR. Whether or not a acanner can capture a wide film
density range has nothing to to with bit depth. Bit depth pertains to
how many levels between the extremes are described, not the extremes
themselves.

Many film developer combinations can handle extreme scene ranges. Then
the issue is exposing and processing into a range your scanner can
capture, usually not hard with negs. Once there, you could scan in 8
bit or 16 bit and get it all. After that the bit depth choice has to
do with process loss, editing, drivers, etc...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com, "David Whistance"
<david.whistance@ ...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure where this comes from. 16 bits of data gives 2 to the
power of
> 16 shades of grey, ie 65,536 of them. Should be plenty to divide by 17
> stops, particularly as the relationship between a stop and a set of
shades
> of grey is arbitrary - you can map them how you like with either the
scanner
> software or Photoshop. What does surprise me is that Steve gets
this from
> an Epson V700, however I've seen some of his images and he does
undoubtedly
> capture a very large SBR with detail at both ends so I'm sure he's
right.
> 
> David Whistance
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com]On Behalf Of Tom
> Baker
> Sent: 07 October 2008 22:04
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
> Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
> 
> 
> But, anything over 16 can't be represented in a 16 bit tiff file.
> 
> TB
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 10/7/08, Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@ ...> wrote:
> 
> From: Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@ ...>
> Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
Getting
> reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 1:31 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana,
> 
> Not many images have that range �" but lately I’ve been
photographing in
> cathedrals where the deep interior shadows through to the sunlit stained
> glass windows certainly have that challenge. So ... yes, I really do.
> 
> Steve Gledhill
> 
> www.virtuallygrey. co.uk <http://www.virtuall ygrey.co. uk/>
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> [mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
Of Dana
> H. Myers
> Sent: 07 October 2008 21:21
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
Getting
> reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
> 
> Steve Gledhill wrote:
> > The next step requires the scanner to be able to scan high
> > density negatives �" or more specifically, areas of high density
�" the
> > highlights. My Epson V700 does that for me. The scanner captures the
> > whole range from clear film base to the maximum density of the
negative
> > and represents it in the TIFF file as a full range 16-bit greyscale
> > scan. So the huge SBR in the original scene is ‘compressed’
(via my
> > workflow) into the range my paper is capable of �" i.e. maximum
ink black
> > to paper white.
> 
> Do you really capture 17-stops of range using a 16-bit TIFF?
> 
> Dana
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [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/DigitalBla ckandWhiteThePri nt
> 
> 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/DigitalBla ckandWhiteThePri nt/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED
OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED
ACCESS TO OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

 













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

Dana, I'm not following you. If the film is exposed and processed such
that it's density range is comfortable for the scanner, what
difference does the scene range really make, in this particular context?
I'm not a math guy...

The scene range could be 5 stops or 16 stops, and if one has materials
and process that can result in approximately equal film density range... ?
Am I making sense?

Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dana H. Myers"
<dana.myers@...> wrote:
>
> David Whistance wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I'm not sure where this comes from. 16 bits of data gives 2 to the
power of
> > 16 shades of grey, ie 65,536 of them. Should be plenty to divide by 17
> > stops, particularly as the relationship between a stop and a set
of shades
> > of grey is arbitrary - you can map them how you like with either
the scanner
> > software or Photoshop. What does surprise me is that Steve gets
this from
> > an Epson V700, however I've seen some of his images and he does
undoubtedly
> > capture a very large SBR with detail at both ends so I'm sure he's
right.

> 
> No one is questioning that David gets a tremendous SBR; it's the
> specific number that sounds too good to be true.
> 
> Dynamic range of a sample is limited to log-base-2(#levels).
> This is a theoretical limit; it assumes a perfect sampling
> chain.  Real-world performance is not going to be as good
> in general, there's a noise floor in the electronic chain,
> flare in the optics and limitations in the A/D converter itself.
> 
> So, in theory, the most that could be represented in a scan is
> 16 stops; practically speaking, it's probably more like 14 stops.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dana
>

Hi Tom, yes that's right. Got it. Compression is a given.
No doubt, local contrast is reduced, some would say far too much. The
art comes later..
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker
<tbaker1328@...> wrote:
>
> True.  But, if you really did capture 18 stops on film, the process
of converting to digital will necessarily compress the tonal range. 
Meaning you are giving up some tonal separation to the compression. 
So, it would seem that it would be better to design your
exposure/film/developing so that you get the best image on film.  One
would have better control over that in the analog process than in the,
probably, linear compression that the conversion to digital would
impose.  I suppose, however, that you could apply curves in the
scanning step to offer some control of where the digital compression
would take place.
>  
> It's the same problem one would have when trying to print a negative
with 18 stops, or even 12, in the darkroom.  Just different media.
>  
> Tom Baker
> 
> --- On Tue, 10/7/08, Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:
> 
> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
> Subject: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
Getting reasonable scan
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 2:31 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes that's right, and I have seen Steve's prints as well. I don't
> shoot interiors like Steve, but often back lit landscapes or other
> difficult SBR. Whether or not a acanner can capture a wide film
> density range has nothing to to with bit depth. Bit depth pertains to
> how many levels between the extremes are described, not the extremes
> themselves.
> 
> Many film developer combinations can handle extreme scene ranges. Then
> the issue is exposing and processing into a range your scanner can
> capture, usually not hard with negs. Once there, you could scan in 8
> bit or 16 bit and get it all. After that the bit depth choice has to
> do with process loss, editing, drivers, etc...
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com, "David
Whistance"
> <david.whistance@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure where this comes from. 16 bits of data gives 2 to the
> power of
> > 16 shades of grey, ie 65,536 of them. Should be plenty to divide by 17
> > stops, particularly as the relationship between a stop and a set of
> shades
> > of grey is arbitrary - you can map them how you like with either the
> scanner
> > software or Photoshop. What does surprise me is that Steve gets
> this from
> > an Epson V700, however I've seen some of his images and he does
> undoubtedly
> > capture a very large SBR with detail at both ends so I'm sure he's
> right.
> > 
> > David Whistance
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com]On Behalf
Of Tom
> > Baker
> > Sent: 07 October 2008 22:04
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
> > Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
> > 
> > 
> > But, anything over 16 can't be represented in a 16 bit tiff file.
> > 
> > TB
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Tue, 10/7/08, Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@ ...> wrote:
> > 
> > From: Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@ ...>
> > Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
> Getting
> > reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 1:31 PM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Dana,
> > 
> > Not many images have that range â€" but lately I’ve been
> photographing in
> > cathedrals where the deep interior shadows through to the sunlit
stained
> > glass windows certainly have that challenge. So ... yes, I really do.
> > 
> > Steve Gledhill
> > 
> > www.virtuallygrey. co.uk <http://www.virtuall ygrey.co. uk/>
> > 
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
> Of Dana
> > H. Myers
> > Sent: 07 October 2008 21:21
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> > Subject: Re: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
> Getting
> > reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
> > 
> > Steve Gledhill wrote:
> > > The next step requires the scanner to be able to scan high
> > > density negatives â€" or more specifically, areas of high density
> â€" the
> > > highlights. My Epson V700 does that for me. The scanner captures the
> > > whole range from clear film base to the maximum density of the
> negative
> > > and represents it in the TIFF file as a full range 16-bit greyscale
> > > scan. So the huge SBR in the original scene is ‘compressed’
> (via my
> > > workflow) into the range my paper is capable of â€" i.e. maximum
> ink black
> > > to paper white.
> > 
> > Do you really capture 17-stops of range using a 16-bit TIFF?
> > 
> > Dana
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [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/DigitalBla ckandWhiteThePri nt
> > 
> > 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/DigitalBla ckandWhiteThePri nt/files/
> > 
> > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT
> > YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
> LIABLE TO YOU
> > FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY
> > DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> > GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
"OWNER" AND
> > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED
> OF THE
> > POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
> INABILITY
> > TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED
> ACCESS TO OR
> > ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
> CONDUCT OF ANY
> > THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY
OTHER

> > MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Dana H. Myers wrote:
> David Whistance wrote:
>   
>> I'm not sure where this comes from. 16 bits of data gives 2 to the power of 16 shades of grey, ie 65,536 of them. Should be plenty to divide by 17 stops, particularly as the relationship between a stop and a set of shades of grey is arbitrary - you can map them how you like with either the scanner software or Photoshop. What does surprise me is that Steve gets this from an Epson V700, however I've seen some of his images and he does undoubtedly capture a very large SBR with detail at both ends so I'm sure he's right.
>>     
>
> No one is questioning that David gets a tremendous SBR; it's the
> specific number that sounds too good to be true.
>
> Dynamic range of a sample is limited to log-base-2(#levels).
> This is a theoretical limit; it assumes a perfect sampling
> chain.  Real-world performance is not going to be as good
> in general, there's a noise floor in the electronic chain,
> flare in the optics and limitations in the A/D converter itself.
>
> So, in theory, the most that could be represented in a scan is
> 16 stops; practically speaking, it's probably more like 14 stops.
>
> Cheers,
> Dana
>   

I think y'all are over thinking this. What scanners do is convert the 
density range they see on the film to the digital range they have 
available. That's all that's going on here. The scanner doesn't have any 
idea what the SBR was at the original scene. None. All it knows, ALL it 
knows, is the density range of the film it's scanning.

If I can put 17 stops of SBR into a density range of 3.0 on the film, 
the scanner will convert it correctly to it's digital range of 0-65535 
(assuming it can read through that much density of course). If on 
another film I put that same 17 stop SBR into a density range of 1.8, 
that too will be scanned into a digital range of 0-65535.
--
Bruce Watson

Hi David,

I don’t measure the actual negative densities, but I do know that I’ve yet to create a neg with an area of density that the V700 can’t scan.  But that arises from the way I process my film.  I don’t overcook my film to produce impenetrable densities.

Steve Gledhill

www.virtuallygrey.co.uk <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/> 

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Whistance
Sent: 07 October 2008 22:21
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...

 

I'm not sure where this comes from. 16 bits of data gives 2 to the power of
16 shades of grey, ie 65,536 of them. Should be plenty to divide by 17
stops, particularly as the relationship between a stop and a set of shades
of grey is arbitrary - you can map them how you like with either the scanner
software or Photoshop. What does surprise me is that Steve gets this from
an Epson V700, however I've seen some of his images and he does undoubtedly
capture a very large SBR with detail at both ends so I'm sure he's right.

David Whistance 



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

Bruce,

Exactly.  Well put.

Steve Gledhill

www.virtuallygrey.co.uk <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/> 

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Watson
Sent: 07 October 2008 22:55
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting
reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...


I think y'all are over thinking this. What scanners do is convert the 
density range they see on the film to the digital range they have 
available. That's all that's going on here. The scanner doesn't have any 
idea what the SBR was at the original scene. None. All it knows, ALL it 
knows, is the density range of the film it's scanning.

If I can put 17 stops of SBR into a density range of 3.0 on the film, 
the scanner will convert it correctly to it's digital range of 0-65535 
(assuming it can read through that much density of course). If on 
another film I put that same 17 stop SBR into a density range of 1.8, 
that too will be scanned into a digital range of 0-65535.
--
Bruce Watson 



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

I agree, its really a question of where, and how, you choose to do the
compression as it has to happen at some stage if you are going to make a
print.  I tend to develop my 4x5 B&W negs in a compensating developer (often
Prescysol EF) so they are fairly "flat", drum scan for a full tonal range
and then manipulate in Photoshop as I find this approach gives me the most
flexibility.  There are undoubtedly many other ways of doing it.

David Whistance

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tom
Baker
Sent: 07 October 2008 22:46
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
Getting reasonable scan


True.\ufffd But, if you really did capture 18 stops on film, the process of
converting to digital will necessarily compress the tonal range.\ufffd Meaning
you are giving up some tonal separation to the compression.\ufffd So, it would
seem that it would be better to design your exposure/film/developing so that
you get the best image on film.\ufffd One would have better control over that in
the analog process than in the, probably, linear compression that the
conversion to digital would impose.\ufffd I suppose, however, that you could
apply curves in the scanning step to offer some control of where the digital
compression would take place.
\ufffd
It's the same problem one would have when trying to print a negative with 18
stops, or even 12, in the darkroom.\ufffd Just different media.
\ufffd
Tom Baker

--- On Tue, 10/7/08, Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:

From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
Subject: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting
reasonable scan
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 2:31 PM






yes that's right, and I have seen Steve's prints as well. I don't
shoot interiors like Steve, but often back lit landscapes or other
difficult SBR. Whether or not a acanner can capture a wide film
density range has nothing to to with bit depth. Bit depth pertains to
how many levels between the extremes are described, not the extremes
themselves.

Many film developer combinations can handle extreme scene ranges. Then
the issue is exposing and processing into a range your scanner can
capture, usually not hard with negs. Once there, you could scan in 8
bit or 16 bit and get it all. After that the bit depth choice has to
do with process loss, editing, drivers, etc...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com, "David Whistance"
<david.whistance@ ...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure where this comes from. 16 bits of data gives 2 to the
power of
> 16 shades of grey, ie 65,536 of them. Should be plenty to divide by 17
> stops, particularly as the relationship between a stop and a set of
shades
> of grey is arbitrary - you can map them how you like with either the
scanner
> software or Photoshop. What does surprise me is that Steve gets
this from
> an Epson V700, however I've seen some of his images and he does
undoubtedly
> capture a very large SBR with detail at both ends so I'm sure he's
right.
>
> David Whistance
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com]On Behalf Of Tom
> Baker
> Sent: 07 October 2008 22:04
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
> Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
>
>
> But, anything over 16 can't be represented in a 16 bit tiff file.
>
> TB
>
>
> --- On Tue, 10/7/08, Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@ ...> wrote:
>
> From: Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@ ...>
> Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
Getting
> reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 1:31 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dana,
>
> Not many images have that range \ufffd" but lately I\u2019ve been
photographing in
> cathedrals where the deep interior shadows through to the sunlit stained
> glass windows certainly have that challenge. So ... yes, I really do.
>
> Steve Gledhill
>
> www.virtuallygrey. co.uk <http://www.virtuall ygrey.co. uk/>
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> [mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
Of Dana
> H. Myers
> Sent: 07 October 2008 21:21
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re:
Getting
> reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...
>
> Steve Gledhill wrote:
> > The next step requires the scanner to be able to scan high
> > density negatives \ufffd" or more specifically, areas of high density
\ufffd" the
> > highlights. My Epson V700 does that for me. The scanner captures the
> > whole range from clear film base to the maximum density of the
negative
> > and represents it in the TIFF file as a full range 16-bit greyscale
> > scan. So the huge SBR in the original scene is \u2018compressed\u2019
(via my
> > workflow) into the range my paper is capable of \ufffd" i.e. maximum
ink black
> > to paper white.
>
> Do you really capture 17-stops of range using a 16-bit TIFF?
>
> Dana
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [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/DigitalBla ckandWhiteThePri nt
>
> 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/DigitalBla ckandWhiteThePri nt/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED
OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED
ACCESS TO OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>















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


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

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

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

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

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

Tom Baker wrote:
> True.  But, if you really did capture 18 stops on film, the process of converting to digital will necessarily compress the tonal range.  Meaning you are giving up some tonal separation to the compression.  So, it would seem that it would be better to design your exposure/film/developing so that you get the best image on film.  One would have better control over that in the analog process than in the, probably, linear compression that the conversion to digital would impose.  I suppose, however, that you could apply curves in the scanning step to offer some control of where the digital compression would take place.
>  
> It's the same problem one would have when trying to print a negative with 18 stops, or even 12, in the darkroom.  Just different media.
>  
> Tom Baker
>   

Um... I disagree. The SBR and how the SBR is represented in density on 
the film are only distantly related; they are nearly completely separate 
things. The density range you get on film is a variable determined by 
the developer, development time, development temperature, agitation, etc.

This is in essence what the Zone System is all about. How to get a given 
SBR into a given density range on film so that it matches well with the 
photo paper's needs. It was a way to get any SBR, 1 stop to 18 stops, 
into a density range on film of 1.1-1.2 or whatever was required by the 
printing process. So small SBRs were "stretched" and large SBRs were 
"compressed" if you want to look at it that way. But really all you were 
doing is making the density range "right" for the printing process.
--
Bruce Watson

Hi Steve

I'm glad to hear it!  Too much measurement never does anyone any good - I pretended to be an engineer in a previous life so this is one of the few things I can comment on from experience.

David Whistance

  -----Original Message-----
  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Steve Gledhill
  Sent: 07 October 2008 22:59
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...


  Hi David,

  I don’t measure the actual negative densities, but I do know that I’ve yet to create a neg with an area of density that the V700 can’t scan. But that arises from the way I process my film. I don’t overcook my film to produce impenetrable densities.

  Steve Gledhill

  www.virtuallygrey.co.uk <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/> 

  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Whistance
  Sent: 07 October 2008 22:21
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: RE: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...

  I'm not sure where this comes from. 16 bits of data gives 2 to the power of
  16 shades of grey, ie 65,536 of them. Should be plenty to divide by 17
  stops, particularly as the relationship between a stop and a set of shades
  of grey is arbitrary - you can map them how you like with either the scanner
  software or Photoshop. What does surprise me is that Steve gets this from
  an Epson V700, however I've seen some of his images and he does undoubtedly
  capture a very large SBR with detail at both ends so I'm sure he's right.

  David Whistance 

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



   

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

Tis true - local contrast is compressed when you squeeze a 17 stop SBR into
65536 shades of grey.  But that's a different subject - and it draws on
one's PhotoShop skills to work the image up into what you envisaged at
capture time.

Steve Gledhill

www.virtuallygrey.co.uk <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/> 

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
Boley
Sent: 07 October 2008 22:53
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting
reasonable scan

 

Hi Tom, yes that's right. Got it. Compression is a given.
No doubt, local contrast is reduced, some would say far too much. The
art comes later..
Tyler

 



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

Dear Leping,

My Mac will handle Photoshop files that are greater than 4GB...

Actually, the last file I worked on, was 26GB.

Have you ever tried working in Photoshop¹s Large Format Document?

jim k




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

Hello Tyler,

>It's a different thread...but it's a very big deal.
>...Many artists in all areas find their results and working level 
>much higher when severely limiting and focusing their options...
>...too many cameras, films, applications, filters, etc etc.

Amen! I'm so glad that you said this, it's absolutely true.  After
using primarily Tri-X and HC-110 for some years I went through a
period of experimentation where I tried every new film (T-Max and
others had arrived) and a variety of developers, searching for the
magic something or other that I convinced myself existed.  After about
two years I realized I was photographically unhappy, hadn't done much
good work, and hadn't found any film I liked better.  I had been
diluting my creative energies.  So I stopped all testing, went back to
Tri-X, and began concentrating fully on the photography.  It made a
huge difference and I entered into what became my best and most
productive period of that (film and darkroom) era.

Something similar happened after the switch to digital, but this time
it was a two-headed monster.  First, the digital cameras.  I went into
Tri-X withdrawal and struggled for a long time to emulate the look.  I
tried all sorts of software and conversion techniques, only to fail
repeatedly.  The other side of the coin was the printing.  For several
years it was one battle after another with various printers, inks and
workflows.  Without question it dominated all else, a black hole that
sucked in most of my creative energy.

The first break came when I let go of my Tri-X obsession and decided
to make the best of what I had.  I discovered that the sensor image
had a beauty of its own and I became attuned to it, much as I had done
with Tri-X, with gratifying results.  On the printing side the
breakthrough was the K3/ABW system.  This released me from the
workflow nightmare and I was finally free to concentrate fully on
photography once again.  And it's been wonderful, resulting in a happy
photographer and, so far, some of my best work in a long time.

This is real and important, and I hope this thread will reach people
who are receptive to it.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

Hi Tyler, Bruce & Others,

I figured my comments would elicit feedback.  I have read through all 
the responses and I believe everyone to be correct each in their own 
way.  I provide an opinion that was way too broad. 

Tyler, thanks for your response.  I do not doubt your film 
comparisons in the slightest.  I should have been more specific.  We 
have come to the usual scientific vs. artistic vs. perceptual 
differences.  A long time back I let go of the need to have 
scientific foundation on which to base my photographic work.  If the 
look of a specific B&W film is what you desire, that is great!  Use 
that film to achieve that look.  I have however (after resisting for 
a long time) concluded that my end goal is to produce a print that I 
and hopefully others enjoy.  Not to try and make everything look like 
a film produced, wet darkroom, air dried, fiber print.

Please understand that I am in no way knocking the look of film on 
paper.  I also used those methods for many years.  Just that as an 
artist I have been much happier in recent years devoting my time to 
creating an end product that I am happy with no matter what the tools 
or methods used to produce that image.  You cannot believe how 
liberating this feeling is.

I have never had anyone ask me when looking at images I am 
exhibiting: "That image would have looked so much better had it been 
captured using film over digital." or "That print would have been so 
much clearer if it had been captured using an 8x10 instead of a 
4x5."  This is the case even at times when I have displayed digital, 
film, 4x5, & 35mm together.  Images the world over are liked or 
disliked by viewers because of the impression that was made on the 
observer by that specific print, no matter how it was produced.

So from a scientific point of view I totally agree with you.  My 
input was to ensure that newer participants to the group who read 
this string would not be left with the conclusion that to produce 
wonderful B&W prints you must use film, or even B&W film.

Bruce Watson's response is also right on the mark for what he is 
trying to achieve.  That is a certain look.  Also the psychology of 
seeing better using B&W film can be totally understood.  All in what 
you get used to.  I too try and "see" in B&W when releasing the 
shutter.  Often however I can get back to my desktop and in working 
with an image have many different moods or looks appear when making 
adjustments to the image in color and then observing those changes in 
B&W.  I must also confess that I am not a B&W purist.  I print in 
color as well.

Steve Gledhill & Dana Myers commented about the virtues of B&W film.  
For me and I suspect others I must respectfully disagree on a point.  
I feel that B&W film, no matter how exposed & developed, whether 
printed in a wet darkroom or prepared digitally for digital printing, 
to me poses severe limitations as compared to using an RGB image as a 
starting point.   In my opinion the extra data associated with the 
color file and the nuances of color is exactly what makes this type 
of file provide so many more possibilities in the finished B&W print.

I am perfectly happy with the range of light stops available in high 
end DLSR's.  If I am in a situation where I am unsure of camera's 
ability to capture the full seen, I take two images since I am almost 
always on a tripod.  I would rather spend time merging the two in 
Photoshop then worrying about development time and methods of the 
film.  I am not arguing that my way is better.  Just that we are 
dealing with art not computer chips.  Just personal preference here.

In closing, I do apologize for jumping into a conversation that 
involved those who still commonly work in film.  I am not trying to 
change anyone's opinion.  This is for the consumption of those on the 
list that do not have reams of experience and to provide talking 
points that we can bounce off of each other.  I understand that I may 
be deluding myself from a purist point of view.  But diverse opinions 
are what make diverse images for us all to enjoy.  I totally agree 
with the "too many options to see clearly.. the forest for the trees" 
comments.

Bruce
http://BruceVarner.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> It depends on what you consider "best". If the options available 
when
> converting to B&W fom a color source are most important, than that
> might be called best. But as someone who scans a variety of film,
> color and B&W, positive and neg, on a variety of scanners, now a 
drum,
> I can say that my definition of B&W quality from film is higher from
> B&W film than color. Resolution, grian, scanner performance, etc. 
are

> all higher from more or less same ISO films.
> 
> If one opens the discussion up to capture, it changes entirely.
> 
> If the topic changes to how to best achieve the highest personal
> artistic B&W results, no question a disciplined focused approach,
> committing to an image while shooting and selecting the materials
> suited to that helps me do my best work, but that is personal.

Hello Bruce,

>I have however (after resisting for a long time) concluded that my 
>end goal is to produce a print that I and hopefully others enjoy.  
>Not to try and make everything look like a film produced, wet
>darkroom, air dried, fiber print...Just that as an artist I have 
>been much happier in recent years devoting my time to creating an 
>end product that I am happy with...You cannot believe how 
>liberating this feeling is.
>I have never had anyone ask me when looking at images I am 
>exhibiting: "That image would have looked so much better had it 
>been...

Thank you, this was beautifully said.  

We are incredibly fortunate that today's technology allows so many
different ways for us to pursue our individual goals and muse.  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

You're so right Tyler.  I'm down to one film (after moving on from 100Tmax
to 400Tmax), one camera with 3 lenses (I've used just 2 for 15 years), one
processing and scanning regime and one printing setup.  It's not that I
don't try alternatives - I do when I find what I'm doing isn't giving me
what I want.  But what I want to do is create printed images.  Forever
evaluating options gets in the way of my objectives.  But this is said from
the luxurious position of having had long the experience of exploring many
options and settled into my niche.

Steve Gledhill

 <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/> www.virtuallygrey.co.uk

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
Boley
Sent: 07 October 2008 20:37
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Seeing B&W was Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes
w/ MF & LF ...

 

HI John, it's interesting to me that Bruce and I were both busily
writing on this same issue in reply. It's a different thread than the
OP's original questions, but it's a very big deal.
Seeing, and all the issues that impact it positively and negatively,
is really what it's all about. We used to call it camerawork.
Many artists in all areas find their results and working level much
higher when severely limiting and focusing their options to those
applicable to the task at hand...
I've become more and more convinced about this over the years. Too
many guitars, too many stomp boxes, too many cameras, films,
applications, filters, etc etc.

It's a problem in digital sometimes... too many options to see
clearly... the forest and trees dilemma.
Tyler 



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

Steve Gledhill wrote:

> I don\u2019t measure the actual negative densities, but I do know that I\u2019ve yet to create a neg with an area of density that the V700 can\u2019t scan.  But that arises from the way I process my film.  I don\u2019t overcook my film to produce impenetrable densities.

The dynamic rnage of the V700 can be 3.38 D. So if the 
negative stays within that range and has a clean base, it 
should be alright.
http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/images/sites06/original/Test_Report_Scanner_multi_ex.pdf

Image Engineering checks the S/N ratio to set the Dmax 
number so it isn't an unusable measurement for practice. 
Highlight in prints should theoretically show noise first 
with negative film but the actual texture in the print will 
depend much on the film, development choice and inkjet 
characteristics.
Wonder what good masking of the film frame can achieve 
furthermore if that wasn't done properly in that test.

The 16 bit should address the separation of the tones: 
compressed, not linear, doesn't matter then. To a degree 
though as the scanner itself may not be up to the task at 
its analogue basics= lamp-sensor, if it drifts too much the 
analogue data could create posterisation up to solarisation 
but that should be more visible in later stages. The more 
the tone rage is compressed the more difficult the analogue 
separation becomes. In itself 16 bit at the A/D stage 
doesn't help then.

In the editing phase the tone range can be brought in line 
again and after that compressed again to the paper tone range.

What I still do not understand of film manufacturers is why 
do they not go for that last stronghold in film making:
A compressed color slide film unusable for projection etc 
but ideal for scanning and with the noise in the shadows of 
the print, the same for a B&W slide film for scanning. Even 
color negative film without a mask would be a step forward. 
Kodak brought some new films on the market but is still 
compromising between analogue and digital printing.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Ernst Dinkla wrote:
> What I still do not understand of film manufacturers is why 
> do they not go for that last stronghold in film making:
> A compressed color slide film unusable for projection etc 
> but ideal for scanning and with the noise in the shadows of 
> the print, the same for a B&W slide film for scanning.
>   

I've been wondering the same thing for years now. A color transparency 
film designed for scanning would be ideal. As you say, put the noise in 
the shadows where it "belongs" and have nice "grainless" highlights. 
Give it the same dynamic range, contrast index, etc. as a color negative 
film like 160PortraNC or Fuji Pro160-S. Doesn't need to be a family of 
different films with different contrast and saturation characteristics 
because it's going to be scanned and manipulated in a photo editor 
anyway. It can really be a one-film-for-everything kind of deal.

The only reason I can see not to do this is that it would take sales 
away from existing films. But in the end, the first company to release 
such a film will be taking sales away from it's rival. So you'd think 
both companies would be interested in the concept. So maybe it will 
happen one day.
--
Bruce Watson

I've been out of town during the scanning, film discussion here. I'd like to
say it was rather good. Others have experienced the same issues that I have;
a long time silver/platinum printer and needing to run the endless test to
flush out the excellent images that can be made with the new stuff. The
changes don't happen over night and are not cheap. 

 

The conversation does come down to the science vs the artistic expression.
It seems to be the never ending battle of balancing the quotient of science
input +  artistic addition = print. As we started to see our favorite
equations removed from our workflow by the elimination of the source
material we need to adapt. The next few years will bring forth a new level
of print making as those of us waging that war are winning more and more of
the battles or just rethinking the best strategies to gain the hilltop. 

 

I will be starting a new round this week as I add the V750 to the workflow;
way past time to retire the 3200. It will be interesting to see how I can
put Steve's input to immediate use. And with the looming beast (only in more
learning _ CS4) of another upgrade, the times keep changing but the goal
remains the same. 

 

While I take some breaks at Photo Expo, it will be interesting to see what
film makers will be letting out of their bags. I feel that the conversation
about the DR and 16 bit, etc will come up again.  : ) 

 

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

 <http://ericneilsenphotography.com> http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Watson
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 6:53 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Subject Brightness Range - branch from [Digital BW] Re: Getting
reasonable scan file sizes w/ MF & LF ...

 

Ernst Dinkla wrote:
> What I still do not understand of film manufacturers is why 
> do they not go for that last stronghold in film making:
> A compressed color slide film unusable for projection etc 
> but ideal for scanning and with the noise in the shadows of 
> the print, the same for a B&W slide film for scanning.
> 

I've been wondering the same thing for years now. So maybe it will 
happen one day.
--
Bruce Watson

 



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

Are we looking at making a table or a housing development? I believe most
people here are more inclined to be of the single tree, single board
craftsmen, and are caught in the on slaught of home building suppliers
flooding the market with green wood. : ) 

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

 <http://ericneilsenphotography.com> http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
Boley
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 2:37 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Seeing B&W was Re: Getting reasonable scan file sizes
w/ MF & LF ...

 



It's a problem in digital sometimes... too many options to see
clearly... the forest and trees dilemma.
Tyler

 



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