Digital BW, The Print

> I find this discussion is not "good enough" -- it is unworthy of
> photographers who aspire to be anything more than industrial hacks
> masquerading as ansel adams wannabes.

An interesting discussion has been going on on the Leica list for a few
years.  People buy Leicas to use Leica glass, which is very high end
glass...and very expensive.  It gives superb images on film, and in fact,
pushes the limits of film.  Yet, I find so many who claim to notice a
difference in glass, who want to use digital (pre current crop, like D1s,
that is).  The point is, they spend all this time, money and energy on a
high end piece of glass, particular films and particular development to get
the highest resolution/quality out of the film they can...and they won't
settle for anything less, but when it comes to digital, somehow they forget
all this, and will settle for less.

I sometimes feel people are "rooting" for digital in the sense that they
really don't care how good it is, or whether it's "better" or "worse".  They
want a hero, and digital is that hero for them.  They defend it beyond
reason and logic, as some do for film as well.

Today, digital certainly has it's application and place, AND film does as
well.  One isn't better/worse than the other in an absolute sense, it
depends on what the "job" is.  I think that it's important to understand
what the upsides of both are, as well as the downsides, over a broad range
of applications, and to have enough knowledge to be able to differentiate
between reality and the exaggerations and hype.

I do believe for the most part, digital will supplant film.  At least for
P&S and most commercial/professional applications.  I believe in medium
format, that won't be as true though.  I also believe there will always be a
lot of people who still want to use film, at least for quite some time to
come.  At least I hope so.

Regards,

Austin