Digital BW, The Print

I certainly don't want to push this issue since it is akin to 
arguing about religion but the point wasn't about what can be 
accomplished with various formats. Obviously the tool needs to fit 
the needs of the photographer for the job at hand. The point was in 
wet printing, particularly black and white, in my view and 
experience, a larger negative is simplly easier to print. What may 
be a minor flaw in a 4 X 5 or 5 X 7 can be a boulder when blowing up 
a 35mm.  Adams occasionally used 35mm and produced absolutely 
stunning images with it; consider the pictue of Orville Cox and 
Georgia O'Keeffe that he made with a Contax at Canyon de Chelly in 
1937 for example. He could probably have done the same with an 
oatmeal box and pinhole. On the other hand the images for which he 
is generally renowned were made with something considerably larger 
as were those of Strand, Weston, Imogene Cunningham etc or for that 
matter the portraits by Karsh. Any technology that improves the 
possibilities with 35 mm does the same in spades for a larger 
format. 

Being able to digitally edit and manipulate an image is really 
changing the game from what was necessary with wet printing. Those 
who have not had to spend hours in the darkroom trying to pull a 
fine print from a troublesome negative possibly aren't going to 
understand.  All of this is not a big deal or important issue, and 
certainly isn't intended to attack anyone's machismo, it is simply a 
personal opinion but one gained by a fair number of years.


Roger



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "John" <jackg@p...> wrote:
> Or perhaps......................?
> 
> Agreed,
> 
>SNIP SNIP SNIP