Re: [Leica] More on the digital darkroom

[Henry Ambrose <digphoto@nashville.net>]

>
>I too am considering going with a "digital darkroom" and I'd like to
>get some comments on what I see as some real benefits, in case I'm
>overlooking something.
>
>FYI: I shoot mainly B&W neg (candids) and color transparancies
>(travel, natural history), using Leica (on topic) and Nikon AIS.
>
>1. I can carry & shoot only color transparancies, and for B&W work
>   simply desaturate before printing.
Yes and no. Using digital processes I have been able to go from color to 
B&W successfully. I do this sometimes but I like the exposure latitude of 
negative film. Also you leave out the classic B&W filtering techinques 
when you do this. That may be OK for you though. 

There are speed issues here too - 100 iso transparency or 400 iso neg? 
Sometimes you may need/want an extra stop or two.

I prefer to use more than one film, but if you can use one - good for 
you. I see this as  only eating hamburgers - never chicken or fish or 
vegetables or anything else. Hamburgers - everyday. No thanks.

If you really want to consolidate what about just switching to color 
negative for everything? I prefer skin tones that color neg produces. No 
projection though.
>
>2. I can carry fewer types of film.  Maybe even just one (MS100/1000,
>   rated as necessary), unless the job specifically calls for
>   something else. 
This could be a good idea too. Relates to number 1 above working for you. 
I shot one roll of MS100/1000 and boy is it SATURATED! I did not think 
much good of this film. Also you can't switch iso mid-roll so you're 
going to change film anyway as conditions change.
If you like it, use it.
>
>3. I can carry one less body (currently one B&W and one slide).  Sure,
>   I'll have to be more careful about exposure, but I'd rather carry
>   my incident meter instead of that extra body.

This would be less to carry.  I carry a meter nearly all the time anyway. 
 I think I carry more than one camera for insurance purposes. I don't 
switch my seeing/thinking/working process back and forth between color 
and B&W very well anyway. 
>
>4. I have the option of projecting the shots (though in color) that
>   I'm currently taking with B&W negative film, something that am
>   currently unable to do.
Yes.
>
>5. I keep myself away from the chemistry.  My local lab does an
>   excellent job anyway.
E6 as well as C41 is fast and simple if you're in a place with good lab 
facilities.
Most everywhere in the US has color negative (C41) processing & printing 
available cheap and quick.
>
>6. Once I've tweaked an image, I can reproduce it with ~100% accuracy.
>   I dodge & burn my B&W images frequently, and making accurate copies
>   "the old way" is next to impossible, not to mention time consuming.
Yes, you can make as many as you want, all the same.
>
>One major concern: I sometimes deliver B&W candids to paying
>"customers."  Is digital output really suitable for this? (a FAQ, I
>know).
Yes. Fuji Pictro prints can be sharper than conventional prints. You have 
to like RC type prints though. Epson ink jets can make really good B&W 
too. I do both.
>
>Another: the slides won't be as archival as my B&W negatives.
Your scans will be more archival than anything conventional. 
(Don't even think of flaming me on this! Lets just save the bandwidth.)
>
>If I hold a digital print next to a conventional one (given the same film,
>same image, unretouched, etc.), what differences will I notice?
It can be sharper and more/differently beautiful than conventional. It is 
not the same as a handmade fiber print. They are different. I suggest 
that this is a preference or choice. Why eliminate either from your 
possibilities?

>I already know (and am not happy with) the tradeoffs involved in being
>dependant on the computer, software, scanner, drivers, obselete media,
>etc. so I'm not too interested in hearing all of that (neither is the
>LUG, probably!).
If you have the inclination to learn and MONEY to buy all the gear - go 
for it! Its great.
It'll be a real learning experience.

>
>Thanks,
>Andrew
>no archive
>