Digital BW, The Print

Jerry,

I really think you continually miss Austin's point.  He is not saying that
your prints...or the output from a D60...or any other digital camera are not
sharp.  He's simply saying film images scanned with a high end scanner
contain more information and this translates into differences in tonality
and detail (NOT SHARPNESS) that are hard to see in a 8x10...but are easy to
see in a enlargement (e.g., 16x20).  I shoot both 35mm digital (D1x and
formerly D1) and film (mainly tmax).  I love my digital camera...don't get
me wrong...but film that I scan with my 4000dpi film scanner or occasionally
with a Imacon or Crosfield drum scanner contains a whole hell of a lot more
tonal information and particularly DETAIL than my D1x is capable of dishing
out. Just take a photo of some grass in a field with evening light and the
difference is easy to see at actual pixels on the screen or in an enlarged
print close up.  BOTH prints are totally sharp...I have control over
that...but they are not equal in these other respects.

Now this may not matter to you depending on your subject matter, print size
or viewing distance...but if you get out the loupe it's easy to see...and
Austin's technical reasoning is very sound and quite honestly much more
sophisticated than the simple comparison's of sharpness that typically
appear in digital vs. film reviews all over the net.  Remember, unbiased
digital vs. film reviews are almost impossible these days because of the
huge pressure from the photo industry to move digital (to sell expensive,
quickly obsolete cameras).

My guess is that as time goes on the size of the enlargement that you can
make with "equal effective tonality and detail" will increase.  I saw output
today from a new phase one back on a mamiya 645...these were color model
shots blown up to 7 feet tall really impressive...but when we stripped those
images to BW they didn't hold up...but they did pretty good 2x3
feet...beautiful eye vein detail for example.

But there is no doubt that there are many jobs were digital is just
fantastic...I have had several in the past 6 months in which I need quick
turn around of images taken of one time events under difficult lighting
conditions...digital to the rescue with very happy clients in the end...but
I think there is also still a big role for film given the current
limitations of the cameras...for how long...I'm not sure...but I was just
buying yet another film camera today....

Robert

PS I really liked your image for the July print exchange...I believe that
was scanned medium format film? <wink>


On 7/24/02 8:15 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote:

> AAAARRRRRrrrrrgh!
> 
> Enough! We've gone over this many times before, Austin and I.  He'll
> never convince me film is better, and I'll never convince hime digital
> is better. So we will just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Of course he's wrong, though. :)
> 
> Jerry