Digital BW, The Print

Yeah, it's all a question of your standards and expectations. 

I must say though that the relative lack of noise and grain from the
digital cameras goes a long way to increasing the final detail level
compared to film. Even 4000 dpi scans from hasselblad negs done at my
portrait lab have _tons_ more noise/grain than I get with the S2. Mind
you, they have a lot more resolution, but a lot of that resolution is
being used to resolve grain patterns, which isn't helpful (imho) in a
final print. 

I'm of the opinion that one can make great 20x24" prints in-darkroom
from 35mm negs - other people tell me that 35mm is not useful past
11x14" - we probably have different standards. The same is probably
true here. I am delighted with the 12x18" prints I have been making
from the S2. I probably wouldn't be happy with them at 30x40" - it's
possible that you would think that my prints are soft or lacking in
detail, but my clients and viewers have been happy, and that's what
matters to me :)

I won't be badmouthing film anytime soon, I really really really miss
doing darkroom work, but the digital stuff just makes more sense for
the moment.

> I agree with very sharp, any image can be made to be very sharp, film or
> digital, but I question "highly" detailed at 13x19.  "Quite" detailed,
> yes...and I'm sure they look pretty good, but I think you oversell the
> ability of these digital cameras to capture "real" image detail.
> 
> The D60 has a 3152 x 2068 sensor, and it's an interpolated Bayer pattern
> sensor.  Anyway, 2068 along a 13" side gives you only ~160 PPI to the
> printer, which is somewhat marginally sufficient.  Whether you "rez"
up or
> not, rezzing up can't create detail that was not captured by the imaging
> device in the first place.
> 
> One or two more generations of digicams (probably 16M pixels) and
I'll buy
> "highly" for a 35mm size digicam on a 13 x 19 ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin