Digital BW, The Print

Jerry,

> >>Digital can record as much as film.
>
>
> > No, physically not possible.
>
> Look at the final prints. Scanning backs are doing it all the time,

We are talking about, and I have CLEARLY stated, this discussion is about
one shot full frame sensors.

> regardless of what the
> numbers say, there is more information on the digital image than on a
> sheet of film.

Again, that's simply not possible.  The information content of film, for the
same area, is far above that of current digital images, except possibly for
high end scanning backs, of which I have a few of, one 7k x 7k for my
Hasselblad.

> >>Of course you have to
> >>use all kinds of adjustments in photoshop to pull out the data, but it
> >>IS there.
> >
> > It has nothing to do with Photoshop at all, that's the part I
> simply don't
> > understand you bringing up.  The data you get from the camera is already
> > setpointed, and as such, there is nothing "hidden" that would require
> > Photoshop to "pull out".
>
> If that were true, who'd bother with photoshop?

You're missing the point.  They EXIST in the recorded image whether you use
Photoshop or not.

> >>I do this every day Austin, and
> >
> >
> > I don't really know what "this" is...
>
> and you don't know what "Is" is. That's always my point. You are a slave
> to the numbers,
> and don't look at the final prints.

Right.  That's why I have a room with a very large magnetic board, and 5k
lights set-up so I can leave it blank...  Actually, I keep that board full,
and put many prints side by side for different comparisons.

> >>I'm telling you my digital prints are better than my darkroom prints,
> >
> >
> > I believe that is true, but you are drawing an erroneous
> conclusion based on
> > an irrelevant or flawed comparison.
>
> We will always disagree Austin,

That may be true...

> nobody has ever won a debate or argument
> with you and never will.

Well, that's not true, as it happens quite frequently...

> >>More shadow
> >>detail is easy to capture in digital. Just
> >>take 2 images  of the same subject, expose one for shadows, one for
> >>highlights, and run an action that combines the
> >>best of both. I do it on  every photo I shoot, if it needs it.
> >
> >
> > Oh, and why can't that be done with film?  Why is it more difficult with
> > film?  That claim makes no sense.
>
> You don't think it would be more difficult to combine 2 negatives in the
> darkroom than
> it would be to do in photoshop?

Irrelevant.  You can use Photoshop to combine the two negatives as well.

>There is no arguing with you as you
>always have a technical reason for why something can't be done as well
>digitally as well as film.

Well, that's simply not true.  I have always said that there are things that
digital image capture can do  better than film, AND that film can do better
than digital.  They are two different input mediums, and each has it's
advantages and disadvantages...the importance of those differences is
different for different people.

Cripes, Jerry...why on earth would have I spent the last 25 years of my life
designing digital imaging equipment, and doing digital photography for over
10 years now, if I didn't understand the benefits of digital?  As well as
the drawbacks...as well as the benefits of the analog part of the process,
having done that both personally and professionally for near 30 years!

Austin