On Sep 28, 2006, at 5:02 PM, William Robb wrote: >> Don't let the boundaries of your experience and expertise be mistaken >> for the limitations of the medium. > > I spent a considerable amount of my life (almost 35 years) learning > black and white. > At the same time, my routine is incredibly simple: > > I expose the film, then I process the film, then I print the film, > generally without jumping a bunch of hoops.
That's the result of your 35 years of experience. > With digital, I make the exposure, check the histogram for clipping > and > adjust exposure as needed, then I do a B&W conversion in Photoshop > using > adjustment layers, tweaking the image until it looks good on the > screen, > then I print it. > What comes off the printer doesn't have the fine tonalities > (gradation) > that I can get from large format, especially in the shadows, which > block > up much faster than they do with film. > I expect it hs to do with film.s ability to compress more tonalities > into the toe of the exposure than the more linear slope of digital > capture can manage. You obviously haven't spent as much time learning to make this as second nature to you the wet lab process you mention above. And how well you have exploited the digital capture, digital inkjet print medium, based on this description, is anybody's guess. > 4x5 film is still a better picture making solution than digital. For some kinds of work, I agree. For the many others, I disagree. > ... it does not compete with sheet film, at least not in my world. Those kinds of work are unimportant in my world at present, or I'd be shooting 4x5 again. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
