Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Richard, IMHO it's hard to tell much, since once you scan an image you're into PS world where you can choose to play with contrast and such and achieve all kinds of things. >From the pop-up enlargements there's no obvious signature of film having been scanned versus digital capture, or even of film processed in a JOBO versus single tank by hand, at least to me on my 20 inch NEC. Then again, that's pretty much my preferred work flow, film to scan to PS to Epson! 35mm or 4x5, no more DARK rooms for me! They all seem to have adequate detail and contrast, or at least enough in the source data to allow you to do just about anything you want. I guess the only real is way to judge is to invoke Mark Rabiner's rule - print it big and see for yourself. Really big! 11x14, maybe 16x20! BTW, they are a nice collection of images; weeks 1, 9, 16 and 21 are just great! Sorry this probably wasn't much help, Norm ********************** From: Richard <richard-lists@imagecraft.com> Subject: [Leica] B&W, digital vs. film Please indulge me. If not, please click delete :-) Looking at: http://www.dragonsgate.net/photosite/PaW2005/ 26 pictures, 11 are in B&W (week 11 I converted to Sepia just because I thought it looks better that way). Week 1, 2, 3 and 16 are taken with Epson R-D1. Shot RAW and converted to B&W Week 9, 10, 12 are Tri-X pushed to ASA800 Week 11 T-Max 400. Week 22 are Acros 100 Week 24, both of them, are HP5+ Not looking at my (lack of) photographic ability for the moment, but just judging the look of the photos for the B&W quality, what do you think? Consider my B&W workflow is unconventional - negatives are processed in a Jobo, then scan. Do they look any worse than conventional processed B&W? Thanks for any comments and suggestions. ************************