Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] B&W, digital vs. film
From: jplaurel at spectare.com (Jim Laurel)
Date: Wed Jun 22 11:00:53 2005

Richard,
Your RD-1 B&W stuff looks fine to me.  And the Tri-X shots as well, though
they are a little muddier.  Still, on my monitor (a calibrated Lacie
Photon20vision LCD), they are well within the bounds.  I don't like the
sepia shot.  You might try my quadtone process, which I posted to the LUG a
while back.

--Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+jplaurel=spectare.com@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+jplaurel=spectare.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Richard
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 2:47 AM
To: lug@leica-users.org
Subject: [Leica] B&W, digital vs. film

Please indulge me. If not, please click delete :-)

Looking at:
http://www.dragonsgate.net/photosite/PaW2005/ 26 pictures, 11 are in B&W 
(week 11 I converted to Sepia just because I thought it looks better that 
way).

Week 1, 2, 3 and 16 are taken with Epson R-D1. Shot RAW and converted to B&W
Week 9, 10, 12 are Tri-X pushed to ASA800
Week 11 T-Max 400.
Week 22 are Acros 100
Week 24, both of them, are HP5+

Not looking at my (lack of) photographic ability for the moment, but just 
judging the look of the photos for the B&W quality, what do you think? 
Consider my B&W workflow is unconventional - negatives are processed in a 
Jobo, then scan. Do they look any worse than conventional processed B&W?

Thanks for any comments and suggestions.

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please 
use richard at imagecraft.com) 


_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard) ([Leica] B&W, digital vs. film)