Except for the fact that scanning the neg and editing typically gives
FAR better results than scanning a print. Prints typically result in
somewhat poor images without much work.
But I print digitally too. A nice matte fibre print is much less hassle
that way (cheaper too). No 1hr washes.
-Adam
graywolf wrote:
No, no, if you shoot B&W you make a great darkroom print then scan that
for web images. If you are going to scan the negative and make digital
prints you lose the benefits of the analog process and might as well
start with a digital image in the first place.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Fernando Terrazzino wrote:
On 3/16/06, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You don't know what your missing. Shoot B&W. Blood will flow like you
have never felt it.
Dave, listeining to Gentle Giant, Brooks
Well, the thing is that I know for sure I'll get "hooked" if I start
shooting B&W, and then I'll have to scan, get a good negative scaner,
even maybe I'll try to setup a darkroom (I don't if you still can
easily get chemicals, equipment), buy books, at some point I'll fed up
with the whole process and I'll say: Fernando, why don't you shoot
digital and try to fake the looks in PS? So, I'm gonna take the
shortcut...
PS: You see what I mean when I say that I am lazy... ;o)
