Improving My digital B&W

[keith_b1]

<p>"... it has been proven that 'good' cables make a world of difference,..."<br>

If 'good' means not defective and within standard specs, I agree. But keep in mind that the wire from the $5000 microphone to the $150,000 mixing desk is an ordinary $29.95 XLR audio cable.</p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>I spent 15 years making b&w prints in a darkroom from 120, 4x5, and 8x10 film. I did the Amidol/Azo bit with 8x10 contact prints and also learned several alternative procsses, mainly gum and van dyke brown. I was a darkroom fanatic, attended four weeks-worth of John Sexton's darkroom workshops and if I say so myself, I was an excellent b&w printer. I paid little attention to digital b&w printing, thought it was for people who didn't know any better, until I saw some of George deWolfe's digital b&w prints while photographing in Maine, around 2004. They totally blew me away in terms of seeing for the first time what could be done digitally. I closed my darkroom a few weeks later except for film processing and haven't had the slightest interest in using one again. If you're not making better prints digitally than you could make in a darkroom then you're doing something wrong - either you haven't learned the tools (which, contrary to what someone said here, are much much harder to learn than the rudimentary tools of darkroom printing) or maybe you just don't like the process - which is fine, nothing wrong with that.<br>

It's hard to tell you what to do when your complaint about digital printing is that it lacks "soul." There is no "soul" tool in Photoshop. But I can tell you that I've exhibited plenty of darkroom prints alongside my digital prints and when under glass there's no way anyone can tell the difference. There is no "digital" look to well-done b&w prints.</p>

[robert_k1]

<p>When comparing a large group of *highest* quality prints of mixed genres and mixed processes, in a side by side blind test, I doubt that anyone can consistently separate the traditional prints from the digital prints based on their "soulfulness".</p>

 

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>1) Choose a film to match your image (in your head) and a developer to bring you there. That's 90% of the digital editing avoided. This will include pushing, pulling, pyros, standing and drum processing. What ever works...right?<br /> 2) Scan, wet mount if possible. When BW, use infra red for BW conversion (vuescan option). Output to raw tif.<br /> 3) Enter PS and convert image with ColorPerfect (aka ColorNeg). If I adjust, it is usually the Gama slider.<br /> 4) Smartsharpen. 7 pixs wide at about 50% with lens blur. Just sharpen enough to affect the grain. Any more degrades the image.<br /> 5) For BW Convert profile to Grey Gama 1.8 for QTR.<br /> 6) Import to LR for cataloging and any post edits, including healing of dust (I don't use ice).<br /> 7) Print Colour: I bring to lab for printing. Print BW: I print to Epson 1440 with Eboni6 inks and QTR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You had me right up to point 2!</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>This <a href="http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html">http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html</a> and this <a href="http://www.aftercapture.com/storage/articles/AC0409_RAW_Black&White_Salwen.pdf">http://www.aftercapture.com/storage/articles/AC0409_RAW_Black&White_Salwen.pdf</a> have yielded me the most desirable results....along with an Epson 4800 printer. Although, I juse the Advanced B&W printing mode in the Epson a lot, I find that using the above two links information, I can print just as good an RGB B&W as well.</p>

<p>The Raw exposing method allows me the most detail in the shadow areas as I can possible get, and the Stunning B&W method allows me to convert the colors to B&W (ie the color contrast filter equivelent in film....only more so) to my desired look. The combination of these two methods lets me tweak the conversion as close as I've ever gotten to a B&W film print.</p>

<p>If you want grain...which I have decided to forget about, in the end.....scan a piece of film and layer it with the digital image (after the B&W conversion....but before the tweaking)....none of the "digital grain" offerings do what I want them to. But, like I said, I got use to no grain added. When I want grainy results, I usually use my Ricoh GRD at ISO 1600. It's digital noise comes the closest I've ever seen to a tri-x at 1600 look that I have ever seen.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Thomas S<br>

Thanks for that second link. Very interesting</p>