Digital darkroom

What is your digital workflow like: what scanner, what printer, etc.?

Scanner is a Linoscan 1200 and Vuescan software. Printer is an Epson 1280
dedicated to MIS variable mix inks and an Epson 2200 that I use very rarely
for color. Negatives are mostly 4x5, some 8x10, some 6x7. Editing software
is Photoshop 6.


"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"Sandy" wrote in message
...

SNIP

There is no inherent difference between an ink jet print made from a
properly
converted color negative and one made from a black and white negative.



Surely that's not the case--as you've indicated, the grain in b&w is
comprised of metal--silver, platinum, etc.--whereas color film grain is
comprised of dye packets. That's as inherent a difference as one can
imagine, though perhaps slight in the end result.

What is your digital workflow like: what scanner, what printer, etc.?

Thanks!

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

What is your digital workflow like: what scanner, what printer, etc.?

Scanner is a Linoscan 1200 and Vuescan software. Printer is an Epson 1280
dedicated to MIS variable mix inks and an Epson 2200 that I use very rarely
for color. Negatives are mostly 4x5, some 8x10, some 6x7. Editing software
is Photoshop 6.


"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"Sandy" wrote in message
...

SNIP

There is no inherent difference between an ink jet print made from a
properly
converted color negative and one made from a black and white negative.



Surely that's not the case--as you've indicated, the grain in b&w is
comprised of metal--silver, platinum, etc.--whereas color film grain is
comprised of dye packets. That's as inherent a difference as one can
imagine, though perhaps slight in the end result.

What is your digital workflow like: what scanner, what printer, etc.?

Thanks!

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

That really wasn't my point, just curious as to what he's using to make
images superior than traditional b&w printing techniques. Surely
something
more than a nikon film scanner and epson printer, like myself!

As you can see from my response to your earlier post, my equipment isn't
vastly different from yours, in fact I do use an Epson printer. The only
hardware that's on the pricey side is the scanne. But the best thing I did
to improve my digital printing had nothing to do with equipment, it was
spending a week studying digital black and white printing with George
deWolfe.

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Matt Clara" wrote:

Surely that's not the case--as you've indicated, the grain in b&w is
comprised of metal--silver, platinum, etc.--whereas color film grain
is
comprised of dye packets. That's as inherent a difference as one
can
imagine, though perhaps slight in the end result.

That's most definately true for 35mm, but I've never made a print
(that
I've
been willing to show to anyone/other than as a test) that the film
grain
or
dye clouds are anywhere near being visually detectable, even at 4"
from
the
print with my built-in 8.75x loupes. (I'm a tad nearsighted.)

No offense, but that seems silly/unecessarily rigorous with black and
white.

The point of black and white is the beauty of the tonality. Tonal
resolution
is inversely proportional to noise. Not only does noise destroy detail, it
destroys the tonality as well. (This is basic engineering/signal
processing/physics: anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke
through
their hat.)

This is the medium format group, remember.

That's a good point: to me, however, the grain in black and white is
part
of
the picture, and not a detriment.

It's a detriment. An ugly and unacceptable detriment.

Sure, there's a whole esthetic of snapshot B&W: the streetshooters with
their Tri-x loaded Leicas.

But it's seriously ugly visually. It's a game played for the content, not
the beauty of the images.

What is your digital workflow like: what scanner, what printer,
etc.?

Presumably, it starts with medium formatg.

That really wasn't my point, just curious as to what he's using to make
images superior than traditional b&w printing techniques. Surely
something
more than a nikon film scanner and epson printer, like myself!

It could the same hardwa I find that my Nikon scanner does ugly things
to
even Tech Pan*, but that if you scan Reala and hit it lightly with
NeatImage, you get a very smooth image.

The Japanese B&W magazine "Natural Glow" often has B&W take on color slide
films, some of which is very effective. As Mxmanic pointed out slide films
resolve the tonality in subject matter that falls within the limited
dynmaic
range of the film better than negative materials would in the same subject
matter.

Truth in advertising: I've not succeeded in getting decent B&W from
scans/inkjets. That's due to me, not to the technology, though. I'm, just
getting back to photography after a long hiatus and have only been
thinking/seeing in color; B&W is on the list of things to do.

*: See the Tech Pan examples at: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

PS: I am especially not impressed by the 8x10, 4x5 and Azo notations. Who
cares?????
Lots attempt, few master.

I didn't talk about my contact printing to impress you. I thought it might
occur to you that anyone who uses an 8x10 camera, mixes Amidol from
scratch, and puts up with a single weight paper such as Azo must be very
concerned with print quality and probably also has a pretty good idea of
what an excellent black and white print looks like since there's not much
reason to use an 8x10 camera and make 8x10 contact prints except to obtain
the best possible print quality in a wet darkroom.

"A Nomal Us Poaster" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Sandy" wrote:

Thank you for your suggestion. I guess you aren't aware of the fact
that
Strand printed almost exclusively in platinum so suggesting that I see
his
work as an example of the difference between silver prints and my
prints is
a little . . . how shall I say this as tactfully as possible . . .
.ignorant.

Call me what you may, still doesn't change your perception
nor do I expect anything could.....Including the fact that out of
148 pieces on display at The Paul Strand Exhibit 1990 at the National
Gallery in Washington DC- 81 pieces were silver gelatin based.

Snip additional arrogant BS

PS: I am especially not impressed by the 8x10, 4x5 and Azo notations. Who
cares?????
Lots attempt, few master. I've been shooting 4x5 since I was twenty and I
am 40
I wouldn't call myself a master but I have sold a few enlargements in my
day , perhaps I have made
500-1000 4x5 negatives ;-) I've never counted them.

PS: I am especially not impressed by the 8x10, 4x5 and Azo notations. Who
cares?????
Lots attempt, few master.

I didn't talk about my contact printing to impress you. I thought it might
occur to you that anyone who uses an 8x10 camera, mixes Amidol from
scratch, and puts up with a single weight paper such as Azo must be very
concerned with print quality and probably also has a pretty good idea of
what an excellent black and white print looks like since there's not much
reason to use an 8x10 camera and make 8x10 contact prints except to obtain
the best possible print quality in a wet darkroom.

"A Nomal Us Poaster" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Sandy" wrote:

Thank you for your suggestion. I guess you aren't aware of the fact
that
Strand printed almost exclusively in platinum so suggesting that I see
his
work as an example of the difference between silver prints and my
prints is
a little . . . how shall I say this as tactfully as possible . . .
.ignorant.

Call me what you may, still doesn't change your perception
nor do I expect anything could.....Including the fact that out of
148 pieces on display at The Paul Strand Exhibit 1990 at the National
Gallery in Washington DC- 81 pieces were silver gelatin based.

Snip additional arrogant BS

PS: I am especially not impressed by the 8x10, 4x5 and Azo notations. Who
cares?????
Lots attempt, few master. I've been shooting 4x5 since I was twenty and I
am 40
I wouldn't call myself a master but I have sold a few enlargements in my
day , perhaps I have made
500-1000 4x5 negatives ;-) I've never counted them.