B&W processing

I'm used to scanning Tri-x and HP5 35mm & 6x6 film with a Nikon 8000. I print on an Epson 2400 and have no

trouble getting beautifully toned, very sharp prints at A3+.

I'm on the verge of investing in either a Nikon D700 or the 5DII. I'm only interested in B&W.

My questions are:

1) will either digital camera give me the images, when converted, that are as sharp and as detailed as the 35mm

printed to that size, or even 6x6?

2) will they give me the subtle tonality?

3) will they give me equivalent dynamic range?

4) there is something about the exquisite grain of Tri-x in D76 at that size, quite fine, but noticeable when you take

your eye into the print - something like fine reticulation in water colour washes - that really keeps the prints alive.

This seems very important in skies. Is it possible to retain some of this in digital prints without resorting to too much

post processing?

I ask the last question, because sometimes, especially when there are expanses of sky, the digital prints I've seen

seem somewhat clinical and lifeless.

Anyone with real experience of scanning B&W film and digital conversions care to comment?

"Anyone with real experience of scanning B&W film and digital conversions care to comment?"

For maybe the 100,000th time?

Good paper helps a lot, esp. with the Epson R2400 - a *superb* B&W printer. I just bought a bunch of Museo Silver Rag -- that stuff rocks in B&W on the 2400. Full DR too. Check it.

How good are you in Photoshop? Digital B&W's from a 5D2 in theory should blow away Tri-X when printed.

Try visiting digitalblackandwhitetheprint yahoo group and browse the archives there.

I don't think it's really possible to answer your questions as they are inherently subjective.

It's not difficult to add "grain" to digital images. There are free actions on the web to help you with this. I find this increases perceived sharpness and makes images look less "digital." I would think scanned Tri-X has more dynamic range than a 5D but with significantly more grain and less detail.

Before investing in a camera I'd suggest joining the B&W print exchange (also on yahoo groups) and take part. You can see what others are doing with both film and digital.

I switched from printing b&w film in my darkroom about 6 years ago, shortly after being blown away by seeing

George deWolfe's digital b&w prints at his home in Maine. I can't answer your specific questions except to say that

you should be able to make better prints digitally than you could make in a darkroom. Otherwise there's no reason to

print digitally. However, it takes some time to learn conversion and b&w printing. One thing that helped me a lot was

taking George deWolfe's week-long digital b&w printing workshop at the Palm Beach Photographic Workshops. I

don't know if he stil teaches it or if it's feasible for you to attend if he does but I thought it was very worthwhile. The

Yahoo digital b&w printing group that Roger mentions is an excellent group but IMHO it's better for dealing with

specific questions rather than as a starting point for learning to convert and print b&w digitally. There are a couple

books dealing with digital b&w, one by Amidou Somebody or Somebody Amidou, I forget his exact name, that have

gotten pretty good reviews though I haven't read them. And finally, how good a darkroom printer are you? In my

experience people who couldn't print very well in a darkroom still can't print very well digitally.

Sorry I can't answer your specific question about skies and Tri-X, I used TMax 100 and HP5+. My only Tri-X

experience was about 30 years ago. My skies don't look lifeless to me but maybe they would to you, I don't know.

1 yes

2 If you know how to convert them properly

3 it will give you a greater dyamic range

4 Tri X has always been a very forgiving film and I´ve used it for many years. Apart from that I´ve worked extensively with Ilford´s Delta 100 which is a lot less forgiving. If you know how to expose accurately you shouldn´t have any problem

1_yes

2_yes

3_yes

go for a 5dMkII..this is my next christmas gift when release : )

1) no, not compared to 6x6 with slower films.

2) no.

3) don't know.

4) a resounding no.

Greg, could you explain on what experience you think (seem alone in at that moment) that the OP would not have a same or better result with a 22 million camera, will not have the same or better result when print and why he wouldtn be able to mimic or get a similar result of something that look like film grain or something else he want to achieve?

im curious since all the people here, professional for most, think otherwise?

thanks

Look for Mauro Franic's recent posts in the medium format forum:

"Resolution (Film vs digital) and diffraction (MF vs DSLR)"

He's comparing to only a 10.1 MP Canon 40D but one can easily extrapolate out to a full frame 21 MP camera.