Digital BW, The Print

"Sam A. McCandless" <samcc@...> writes:

> >Certainly the film matters.  Slower film *tends* to be sharper and 
> >finer grained (and those two aren't exactly the same thing, either), 
> >though it isn't all the time.
> >
> >Color film (and the chromagenic B&W like Ilford XP2) has a very 
> >different "grain" structure from old-type B&W film -- dye clouds 
> >released *by* the grains, but not sharp edged.  And bigger than the 
> >actual grain.  So you get a different look, which may work for some 
> >pictures better than others.  I've seen a pair of 2x3 foot prints 
> >made from 35mm XP2 that look *amazingly* clean and good and 
> >grainless, even up close.  Sure worked for that image (a model with 
> >nice skin).
> 
> Thanks David (Dyer-Bennett); I'll check out the Ilford XP2.

That particular film also seems to like to be exposed around EI200 for
optimal grain (it's nominally 400, and works fine at 400, too).

> >I'd rank glass last, myself; but that's assuming you don't own any 
> >real crap. [snip]
> 
> That surprises me. But no crap: I got mid-level/EF Canon lenses: EF 
> 28-135mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS (which I can usually use w/o a tripod _if_ I 
> use 400 instead of 100 film), and EF 20-35mm 1:3.5-4.5 (which I can 
> usually use w/o a tripod  _if_ I use 400 film _and_ forego some depth 
> of field). Each of these was a few hundred dollars. For the short 
> zoom, which is more important to me, there are "L" alternatives with 
> f-stop ranges which start at 2.8 and other seemingly (but what do I 
> know?) marginal advantages. For $1200 - $1500.

I'm not a lens tester.  On the other hand, I've gotten rid of lenses
because I consistently didn't like the pictures I took with them (for
whatever reasons) and kept lenses that consistently took good pictures
even if there was no obvious excuse for them to do so (that latter is
a mid-70s Tamron 85-210 zoom).  I've owned Leitz Summicron lenses (and
loved them, but when that system got stolen I never quite replaced
it), and have quite a few Nikon prime lenses currently (20mm, 24mm,
35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 58mm f1.2, 105mm f2.5, 135mm f2), so my informal
comparisons include decent glass.

I *strongly* suspect that what it comes down to is that for the
journalistic photography I mostly do, the lens is rarely the limiting
factor compared to camera shake, focus, and such, and that I don't do
*enough* of the other work to notice the problems.  Except for flare;
I catch flare the first time I shoot in the studio with a white
background for some reason :-).

So I'm not saying glass isn't important; it is after all the thing
that actually forms the image on the film!  But my experience suggests
to me that one of the simpler, cheaper, issues is more likely to be
the real problem.  If your work habits are different from mine, you
may well not be in that situation, so my initial advice may not
actually be good for you.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
                 Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/