Ag,
Do you use anything like tha Wacom Graphire tablet? I admit I am still
learning to use it well, but it sure makes dodging and burning easier than
with the mouse. I agree that a true B&W print has a certain 'je ne sais
quois', but even in this arena, digital is catching up quickly. I'm
considering putting a B&W CIS on my 1270 since I can print color on the
7600. Although, I have to say, the 1270 does a great job of B&W using,
surprisingly, the color inks.
I would also argue about the 'perfect' image. I'd turn it around completely.
With digital, you can customize each and every print, every time, if you are
so inclined. If you do happen on a particular image that you like, you can
easily duplicate it over and over, even months apart. In the darkroom,
generating an exact duplicate is virtually impossible, even in the same
session.
I still like film, but admit that I am doing almost exclusively digital. I
took a shot in the moring and had a framed, matted and mounted poster by
lunch. Doing that with film is difficult and outrageously expensive.
Tom
-----
> --- Winsor wrote:
> >
> > This looks pretty good to me:
>
>
> I didn't say that you can't do B&W in digital--far from it.
> What I'm saying is that it's harder to get those tonal nuances
> that happen as a matter of subtle dodging, burning and other
> oddball darkroom techniques.
>
> * Computer editing is superior for local enhancement.
> * Computer editing is superior for entire image tonal balance.
> * Darkroom editing is superior for regional tonal adjustment.
>
> ...and of course
>
> * Darkroom printing produces archival prints on fiber-based
> paper with surface-reflective nuances unique to the composition
> of the geletin and developer. Forte, for example, has a "glow"
> to the surface enhanced further by certain developers.
>
> * Darkroom printing allows creative interpretation of the image
> each and every time. No two prints need to be the same. With
> computer editing, we "perfect" the image once and live with the
> results ever after.
>
> Oh, and you've got to question the validity of the opinion when
> the writer says: "Highlight detail suffers a little bit compared
> to T-Max 400, but then again, nothing can really touch that
> film." T-Max 400, even the latest/greatest has some of the
> worst highlight details of any film ever made.
>
> My opinion, of course.
>
> AG-Schnozz
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>
> 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"
>
>
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"
|