Digital BW, The Print

>> Another paper I read was a study of the lp/mm it is possible to
>> capture on
>> 35mm film. The author found that lenses, use of consumer film, non-use
>> of
>> tripods/shutter releases/mirror lock-up, use of autofocus, filters
>> placed on
>> the lens, etc limits most photographers to a quality of around 50 lp/mm.
>> That equates to 100dpi on a sensor 36mm x 24mm, or a 3600x2400 pixel
>> image
>> (just over 8Mp). 
>>
>
> Maybe, but the same 'lowering issues' apply to digital photography, so a
> real 6 Mp  in a digital camera would result in (due to use of lenses,
> non-use of tripods etc.)to, say, 2.2 Mp. What matters is what you get in
> films vs. CCD, **all the other things being equal**.
> Best,
> Ton Guiking
>
No, it doesn't work like that. You don't sacrifice some magical percentage
of your maximum resolution.

For the sake of simplicity, lets assume you've got an 8Mp 36x24mm digital
camera. This camera would have enough resolution to record the 50 lp/mm
images you can expect when hand-holding with consumer-grade lenses and
filters. However, putting that camera on a tripod and using professional
lenses won't get you any extra resolution. Nothing you do can increase the
amount of detail you can capture (those lucky film guys can always upgrade
to better film/lenses/tripods/filters/etc for more detail!).

I think we're actually arguing the same thing here. I figure people that own
35mm cameras shouldn't put down digital's supposedly-lower resolution unless
they're using high-quality slide film, tripods, good glass, etc to maximise
the detail they're capturing on film. Otherwise, they're just as guilty of
sacrificing resolution for convenience as us digital guys are.

The difference is that film guys save money in the sacrifice - us digital
guys pay extra for it :-).

Darren.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]