Digital BW, The Print

Thanks for the reply. That was kind of what I was expecting. A film 
only darkroom, doesn't take up that much space any way. I guess that 
will be the best route to take. Thanks again -- Jim



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> > At least one review has compared it favorably
> > to 645 roll film.
> 
> No 35mm digital camera compares favorably to medium-format film; 
even 35mm
> film does not compare favorably to medium-format film.
> 
> > It is my understanding that B&W work is much
> > more demanding on camera quality.
> 
> Digital is a poor choice for dedicated black and white work unless 
the
> camera is designed specifically for black and white work (i.e., it 
will not
> shoot color, and it does not have the color matrix filter over the 
sensor
> that color digicams have).  Dedicated digital black and white 
cameras can
> give excellent results, however, even if the resolution is 
typically lower
> than that of fine-grained or larger-format B&W film.
> 
> Digital B&W also has a fixed spectral sensitivity, whereas B&W 
film has
> sensitivity that can be changed by changing films.  To some extent 
this can
> be mitigated by filters, but it still isn't quite as flexible as 
film ... if
> you need that type of flexibility.
> 
> Since B&W film is easy to shoot and easy to process, and doesn't 
cost very
> much compared to color, why would you want to do it digitally to 
begin with?
> 
> > How large can you print a file from this camera
> > and still hold satisfactory detail?
> 
> Divide the viewing distance by 6875, then divide the dimensions of 
the final
> print by the result.  This will give you the number of pixels 
required in
> the image to preserve all visible detail.  Digital prints will not 
hold up
> to this standard if you are preparing big enlargements that will 
be examined
> at close range.  For prints that will be examined from 
a "standard" viewing
> distance (equal to the diagonal of the print), a high-end digital 
with at
> least 6 megapixels will usually suffice.  In black and white, the 
criteria
> may be more stringent, because digicams lose luminance resolution 
because of
> their matrix color filters (i.e., a 6-megapixel color digicam 
really doesn't
> have 6 megapixels of resolution in black and white).
> 
> > I know it will never compete with a 4X5, but I won't be
> > making any 16X20 prints, either. What do you folks
> > think?
> 
> I don't think digital is the ultimate in B&W.  It's too easy to 
shoot
> Technical Pan and handily whip any digital 35mm camera under the 
sun.
> Scanning backs can do somewhat better, but I presume that you 
aren't
> interested in scanning backs (which in turn imply large-format 
cameras,
> AFAIK).