[tuco]

But as soon as you scan it in it is no longer true grayscale any way. It is still entering an RGB world. The filmm is gray. The scans are RGB. Your monitor is RGB.

Prints from BW film are all not gray scale either. You had all kinds of paper besides cold-tone, RC glossy. And most of my BW negatives are not gray scale. They have a brownish green stain from one of the developers I use.

[kxr4trids]

Both scans and monitors can be grayscale if you so desire, though there's really no need.

A more appropriate analogy would be to compare digital b&w to color film scanned and converted to grayscale.

Also, you can scan files at higher bit depth.

Just not for pennies a frame at costco.

Prints from BW film are all not gray scale either. You had all kinds of paper besides cold-tone, RC glossy. And most of my BW negatives are not gray scale. They have a brownish green stain from one of the developers I use.

This is true about papers. You can also use warm tone papers and on and on. That green cast wouldn't matter in analog however. Only analog is a true grayscale. And I'd trust good optics over a decent scanner.

[Vertex Ninja]

This is true about papers. You can also use warm tone papers and on and on. That green cast wouldn't matter in analog however. Only analog is a true grayscale. And I'd trust good optics over a decent scanner.

That green stain or brown(depending on developer), from my understanding, does make a difference. I've never printed analog, but it is my understanding that the stain is meant for blocking certain light for alternative processes and has much less effect on traditional silver papers. Again, just what I've read, tuco would be far more qualified than me to touch on that point.

Why is a grayscale digital file less grayscale than an analog print? Especially since there are custom carbon ink sets and real B&W paper from machine prints, not to mention digital negatives for contact printing on gum, carbon, lodima etc. That and the light used to expose and view the paper is not grayscale.

I'm also curious to hear how a very good scan, say a drum scan, when printed on a chemical printer somehow has less color than a straight analog print to the same paper. Velvia 50, as far as I know, has a larger gamut than any film and yet all it's possible colors still fit into 'prophoto rgb'. In fact, they supposedly fit into a smaller space like the excellent 'ektaspace' or 'chromespace' from Joseph Holmes. Color negative reportedly has an even smaller space.

Fine art photographers, of which I'm not , have been using a hybrid process with large format for a long time. If one was outright better than the other, then they'd use it exclusively. They are different workflows and different looks, not better and worse.

That said, I'll agree... an all analog print is probably better than poor scans to analog/digital print, but I don't think it's fair to make blanket statements about one being inherently superior. There are just too many variables, and to my knowledge, almost all color film is scanned for printing on the new machines.