> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Royall
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 11:07 AM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Re: Why Film instead of Digital
>
>
> I'm sure the way to get most detail into the digital file is
> to scan the neg at high resolution. There will be a degree of
> information loss going from neg to print to scan.
True, but not my question, since I'm after the best way to get at the
"fine art" aspects of BW photography, not just information transfer per
se. Also, if the issue is some quality captured in a fine art BW print,
the print rather than the film might be considered the first-generation
artifact, mightn't it?
I think
> people often scan from prints when they have large size
> negatives, for which a film scanner would be prohibitively
> expensive. Anything achievable from a wet print should be
> achievable digitally, except for certain textures / glows /
> tonings from papers, etc, but then these won't be replicated
> from scanning a print either.
>
> James
Thanks. True again. I should have confined the parameters I'm
personally interested in to 35mm. I'm also most interested in what
people actually are doing rather than what should be the case
theoretically. I often achieve what I'm looking for in a BW film scan
that appears OK on the monitor, but the digital print is another matter
where the grays and blacks often don't transition correctly. If one
assumes that "fine art" qualities should be achievable in digital
process post film, that's fine, but is the assumption correct?
I'm sometimes left thinking that film/darkroom and film/digital are
divided and distinguished worlds, and that one simply needs to learn to
visualize to the capabilities of either and not assume one method will
serve both. I know a guy who does all of his digital BW work from color
print film. I just can't bring myself to do that. I don't shoot the
two types of film in quite the same way. Perhaps my attitude is getting
in the way?
Joel W.
>
> On 5 Apr 2004, at 4:49 pm, Wilcox, Joel F wrote:
>
> >
> > For Ken (or anyone digitizing BW):
> >
> > Is the proper way to digitize BW to scan the film? or is
> it better to
> > make wet prints of the negative that realize a
> "performance" of sorts
> > (Adam's lingo) and then scan that on a good flatbed?
> >
> > I'm not trying to load the second method so as to make that the
> > obvious choice. I'm sure the second method is viable (and I know
> > people selling BW digital prints for good money doing
> that). What I'd
> > like to know is if anyone is happily making successful digital BW
> > prints from film scans and not thinking "This is OK for web
> work, but
> > I wonder if it wouldn't be nicer as a wet print ..."
> >
> > Joel W.
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|