Digital BW, The Print

Charles writes:

> 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.

Resolution isn't quite the same as grain or noise.  Film provides more
detail, even though the noise level is higher.  The fact that a sky looks
glassy smooth in digital doesn't mean that it has more detail; indeed, the
lack of noise makes individual pixels less obvious, and so you don't notice
that there are considerably fewer pixels.

> Even 4000 dpi scans from hasselblad negs done at my
> portrait lab have _tons_ more noise/grain than I
> get with the S2.

Stop shooting Tri-X.  I get great scans on MF with films like Provia, and
there is no grain.

In fact, when directly comparing MF film scans even to a Kodak ProBack or
PhaseOne back, film wins for detail.

Additionally, if you look closely at digital shots, the colors are smeared.
This is a consequence of using just one CCD and there is no way to prevent
or correct it as long as a mosaic filter is being used over the sensor.
Film has about three times the color resolution of digital, all else being
equal.

> 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.

Only a small portion of resolution goes to resolving grain.  There is more
detail as well.

> 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.

It's pointless to discuss print sizes without specifying viewing distances.

For any print viewed from the "standard" viewing distance (equal to the
diagonal of the print), 35mm film has several times more detail than is
really necessary, and any 6-megapixel digicam has just about all the detail
that the human eye can distinguish.  Obviously, MF and LF are many times
beyond both of these.

> 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.

The best results quality-wise come from scanned film, particularly scanned
MF or LF film.