Digital BW, The Print

> =Just curious as to what your thinking is in that if we scan
> =the negatives we should just do digital images in the first place?
> =
> Once you scan, you ARE digital.
>
> It's just a LOT of extra work.

It's not a "LOT" of extra work, especially since the results are far
superior.

> Processing, scanning plus all the
> Photoshop
> work.  But, add dust removal, etc. to the equation.

I don't do dust removal, I do no work in PS except to resize the image
before printing.

> Right after getting the D1's I was very skeptical for quite a
> while.  Then I
> wound up on a job in Italy and Crete.  I shot EVERYTHING important on both
> digital and Provia (35mm).  I am here to tell you that have
> slides that are
> NO better than the digital when printed on EAM.

You must be making small prints then.  For certain applications, digital is
far better, no doubt.  BUT...you are also talking color here, NOT B&W.  For
B&W there is a significant difference in quality between converting RGB from
a digital camera to grayscale.

> I WILL admit if I were making murals or 30x40's I would use the
> film.  But I
> don't do that.

Understood.  I find anything 8x10 or larger really does better with film,
and I primarily print 13x19 or larger, so I really prefer film.

To go back to your claim of digital takes less work, for me that isn't
true...for what I would use digital for that is.  Happy snaps.  I can bring
my 36 exposure roll to the local store, get double prints, all for $15.
There are no quickie digital printing places near here, and the ones I've
seen are tedious to use.  You have to stand there at the machine and specify
every print size etc.  Talk about a waste of time!

The other issue with digital is storage.  Film is so much easier to store,
and know that it'll be around for a very long time.  Technically, digital
could outlast film, no doubt...but as of right now, for me, for happy snaps,
film is far easier.

Regards,

Austin