Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Keith writes:
> 
> > I suspect the comparison you were refering to
> > was on www.luminous-landscape.com where micheal
> > has abandoned MF for a 1Ds.
> 
> I was referring to the general statement that (35mm) digital 
compares
> favorably to 645.  Generally speaking, (35mm) digital does NOT 
compare
> favorably to 645.

got to argue this one.  I think that in truth the jury is still out 
on this when looking at the latest high pixel count sensors.  The 
whole thing is getting into the area of real world lens resolution, 
and the actual resolution obtained by the whole process, including 
camera lens, film, processing, enlarger lens etc.





> > BUT - from what I gather, one major problem
> > may be that B&W film has a greater dynamic range
> > that any colour film or digital sensor.
> 
> True, although ideal electronic sensors can have an equal or 
greater range
> (but such sensors are not used in photographic still cameras).  B&W 
film has
> a greater density range, too, since negatives can go from 
practically opaque
> to crystal-clear.

from what I gather, B&W film, properly exposed and processed can have 
about 8 stops , wheras colour and digital has about 5 at best.

> 
> > BUT I also read that inkjet prints can have a
> > greater contrast range than the best conventional
> > prints (don't flame me  - look at www.piezography.com)
> 
> Generally speaking, that is not true.  I don't even think it is 
true for B&W
> ink-jet prints, but I may be wrong.  True B&W photographic prints 
have
> enormous density ranges ... as prints go, that is.

In terms of colour prints, I think the latest inkjet systems gives do 
give prints that are as good as any - and a whole lot easier.  It MAY 
be true that a really good colour darkroom can do better, but it's a 
lot or work.  It will also depend on what you are printing - colour 
neg or slide etc.

> 
> > BUT - if you shoot digital, you can shoot in
> > colour and apply filters  (red , yellow etc) in
> > post proccessing.
> 
> That won't help.  When you record an image in color, you 
permanently lose
> information that would have been recorded by B&W film.  There is no 
way to
> recover that information in post-production, so there is no way to
> accurately simulate B&W film by any manipulation of a color image.
> 

Your point on the characteristics of different B&W films is well 
made.  These films will pick up information differently from each 
other and from a digital sensor.  If that is what you want, then your 
chosen film (and probably your chosen developer / agitation / time )
is the only option

 
> > If you shoot MF and have a good scanner (= expensive)
> > you will probably get better results (but possibly
> > only really visible on BIG prints)
> 
> MF superiority is sometimes evident even on small prints, thanks to 
the
> additional depth of modulation provided by MF in the original image.

It may well be different, but it would be difficult to measure 
objectivly.

keith