Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I was wondering. Is there (should there be) a difference between BW prints done off colour negatives and BW prints done of BW negatives, assuming a BW enlarger, BW paper and chemicals? Javier Nick Poole wrote: > Re: B&W repro in National Geographic, Thomas G. Tamura wrote: > > > >I wonder if it was even shot with B&W film? I believe many of the > >news magazines (snip) are running B&W photos that were originally > >shot on either color film or digitally. > > > >Just my thoughts. > > You're quite right, Thomas. This is now the norm because it's so easy > to strip the colour out in Photoshop and still retain the densities > needed to print as a full tone B&W image - if done properly. But few > people do this because it takes real skill to get rich, open shadow > detail using a single ink (black) on an offset press. B&W pictures in > art books, monographs etc., are usually printed as duotones (black > and a second colour, often grey, to retain highlight detail and > enrich the lower mid-tones) to overcome this. What you may not be > aware of is that nearly all B&W images in magazines are printed using > CMYK process inks, i.e. they are really colour! Examine the > characteristic rosettes under a loupe and you'll see it clearly. > Nick. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com