Digital BW, The Print

Austin writes:

> That's for the most part, true...but for faster
> films, MF hold together better, obviously.

I forgot about that, but you are right.  Tri-X looks nicer on MF than on
35mm (although it's not exactly the same emulsion).  Portra 400F looks a tad
soft and shows some grain in 35mm, but looks great in MF.

I regularly wonder why I can't get T-Max P3200 in MF, since the grain would
be much less obvious in MF and would thus make the ultra high speed even
more useful.

> So, for even smaller prints, depending on the film, MF
> can have a distinct advantage.

But one can also argue that digital would be an even better choice, if
resolution is not required and grain must be avoided.  Most digicams are
pretty slow in terms of sensitivity, but that is changing, and supposedly
pro bodies manage quite well.