Digital BW, The Print

"Shire,Stanley" wrote:

> <snip>  I shot many CF cards full of images with the 990.
> I made a dozen or so 11x14 prints with my 1270 (HWM, Enhanced Gen inks) and my wife (who has looked at way
> too many of my images over the last few decades) said, "They don't look like the old stuff" "What old stuff"
> "The old stuff that you used to do in the darkroom"
> Wow! Reality check. Cut to the chase. The difference (for her) was both resolution and the look of the
> print.
> After looking verrry critically at the images, she was right. The fine detail in aspens and other landscape
> elements at great distances is not there. It's subtle, almost sensed rather than immediately evident.
> Revelation #2
> I went to Gettysburg for a few days. I took Mamiya 7, NPS, 3 lenses and a tripod.
> Astounding.
> The scans of the negatives were lovely. Detail, range, beautifully smooth gradations, no noise in the 90
> second dusk exposures.
> The prints were wonderful.
> My wife said "Better, but they don't look like the old stuff." Huh?

Just curious....What scanning equipment did you use for the negatives?

Also:  I am not surprised that the digi camera images did not have the subtleties in the details, especially
in landscape images, and especially at those sized prints...I think as capture mechanisms improve, this will
change, but right now (with the cameras you mentioned) there are real limitations.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]