That's a major generalisation from a very limuted experience...

In general, if the photographer pays proper attantion to getting the image right at the point of capture, as you would if you were shooting transaparency film, then the difference between RAW and JPEG capture will be very, very difficult to see, even at A3 print size.

We ran tests with a large audience at ADAPS and most people could not tell the difference. Of those who could, depending on subject matter sometimes RAW was seen to produce superior results, but also sometimes JPEG was. So the situation is not totally in favour of either type of capture.

I use the Interfit Studio Flash Transmitter which does the job with no problems.

Cost was probably about £35, but it is a while ago so you'll need to check the current going rate.

Hope that helps!

How about using an IR trigger (it fits in the hotshoe) to fire the external flashes?

The tones are good and the dark outer areas concentrate our eyes on the centre. Unfortunately it's not very clear what the image is about or indeed what it is. perhaps a few more visual clues would be helpful?

The techniques for film and digital are quite different.

With film, filters can control the tonal values in black and white, but exposure for the shadow areas gives the best result.

With transparency film and digital exposure for the highlights is the way to go to avoid total loss of detail in the lightest areas.

However, with digital we can also make selctions and alter tonal values in selected areas of the image. This can also be done in the darkroom, but is much more difficult and demands very good technique.

Very often these days if I don't like the sky in a lanscape I don't include it in my composition.

I still agree with you...twice in one thread, is this a record?

The trick with digital is to preserve the highlights (although it doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned if a bit here and there is blown out) and let the shadows take care of themselves, just like we used to do with slides. An images that is too light is useless. A dark image can be saved.

In other words, I agree with you!

The beauty of processing our own black and white film, apart from being able to get the right quality, is that we can use different developers to get different effects from a given film.

As an example, I use Paterson FX-39 to get a very sharp grain structure. Not the finest grain, but no trace of mushiness and a really crisp result.

For finer grain and a good well rounded negative you could try Paterson Aculux 2.

Both of these are liquid concentrates and more convenient than mixing powders.

It sounds like your equivalent to Channel Mixer is the way to go.

If you can, process your own black and white film. It isn't difficult and it will reap rewards for you. Once you are in the swing of things your results will be vastly superior.

If it's colour film then a professional lab will be worth the extra cost.

How do you convert to black and white? If you are using Greyscale then that could account for the flat results. The best method is to use Channel Mixer in Photoshop, which will enable you to adjust the exact tonal balance.

You don't seem to be getting much punch from the scans, but it's difficult to comment without knowing your method in detail.

The alternative to scanning, if your scanner is the weak link, is to tape a medium format negative to a light box, make sure the room is dark to avoid reflections and use a macro lens to make a direct digital image with your DSLR. On the face of it, this should give better results than you are getting now.