Digital BW, The Print

Hi Clayton,

> >----------------------------------------------
> >Digital imaging sensors are subject to the sensitivity of the sensor,
> and they are limited to 11/12 stops at this point in time.
>
> >I do this every day and I'm telling you my digital prints are better
> than my darkroom prints
> >----------------------------------------------
>
> This is shaping up like one of those classic Theorist vs Practical
> Realist kind of debates

I've been doing digital imaging for almost as long as I've been doing
"regular" photography, so I speak from my own experience, not from theory.
It just so happens that the theory backs me up on what's possible.

> My own experience is that during the past year I have been scanning my
> best 4x5 and 6x7 Tri-X negs and making digi prints, and the prints are
> better than I could ever do with the enlarger.

That can very well be true for a lot of people, simply because you have more
control of the image.  But the issue was digital camera as the source, vs
film as the source, not printing scanned film vs darkroom film.  That's a
whole other issue, and I, too, get better results from scanning and
inkjet/Piezo printing my images.

> So it could be the software advantage that allows the practical
> realist to overcome the theoretical limitations.  In other words,
> while the neg may have more information than the digital capture, the
> enlarger doesn't allow us to make use of it as well as software can.

Exactly ;-)  This is why when talking with Jerry, I always try to separate
out the image source from the printing process.  He compares #1 -
film/chemical darkroom vs #2 - digital image capture/inkjet printing and
says that #2 is better than #1...and though that may be true, he then goes
on to claim that because that comparison is true, therefore digital cameras
are "better" than film...but that conclusion can't be drawn from that
comparison, which is (usually) my point (in this particular discussion,
which happens regularly).

Regards,

Austin