Joel asked:
> 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 personally like the scanned chemical print. An added
advantage is that you don't actually need to get the print
"exact". In fact, a little bit of flatness is good, because the
scanning tends to expand the range somewhat. Saint AA even
wrote about that in "The Print".
Chemical B&W prints actually can cost quite a bit less than
inkjet output. Especially if you are like me and tend to
generate large expanses of Zones 0-III. Can you say "bronzing?"
Joel, since I am right down the road from you, I'd be happy to
print some of those rolls for you. <smile>
I've chatted with a couple "fine-art" B&W photographers that use
digital for the entire process and output with various
multiblack inking systems. It is very tempting, but the reality
is, they spend more time per print than they ever did in the
darkroom. Cost savings? None. No matter how "profiled" the
system is, each picture has it's own nuances that require
eyeball adjustment after the inks dry.
A B&W darkroom really doesn't cost very much to either setup or
operate. Paper is frequently less expensive than inkjet paper
and chemicals are pretty cheap. Time spent per print is usually
less than in digital (expecially when batch printing). You can
make some pretty huge prints, depending on your equipment. It
doesn't take up much space and the investment doesn't become
outdated in six months.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
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"
|