Digital BW, The Print

> From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...> Subject: Techies -vs- Artists
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ernst Dinkla"
> <E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> 
>> The people that are using digital Canon D1's, Sinar backs on
>> Sinars and Hasselblads write that few of their old lenses can
>> cope with the quality of the sensors.
> 
> Some of us got into photography from the technical side such as science and
> engineering. (I started off doing astrophotography and eventually graduated to
> other subjects such as studio nudes)   Other photographers started off as art
> majors.
> 
> You can tell which are which by who can do the math.
> 

You can also tell by who gives a flip about their photographs.

An artistically great but technically so-so photograph (HCB, etc., etc.)
will still be remembered as great. A photo that sets a new world record for
lpmm resolution but is artistically so-so will be forgotten pretty much
immediately. (Unless, of course, you work in Air Force surveillance. ;-) In
a fair, real-world photography fight, art wins every time.


> Fine grain film can resolve 80 lp/mm (or better - Panatomic-X could easily do
> over 100 lp/mm).   So do the math.   It takes (a MINIMUM of) two pixels to
> resolve a line-pair.  So a 36x36mm sensor such as the type used in MF
> photography would need to have 160 elements/mm to resolve 80 lp/mm.  That
> would be over 33 MP.    Sinar's best is 22 MP and it's 36x49mm, which means
> it's even lower-res than what I used in the above example.
> 
> So get over it: digital sensors are NOT as sharp as film.   Actually digital
> sensors are even worse than the above math suggests because of the need for
> bayesian reconstruction.   The color resolution is even lower than the
> luminance resolution.
> 

The point is moot. The numbers don't tell the whole story. There are already
a ton of people who are artistically more gifted, commercially more
successful, and much more respected as photographers than either you or me,
who say that digital is plenty good enough, right now. And their work shows
it. I know because as an advertising creative, you get to see it every day
(I'm talking both commercial and "fine art"). Awfully hard to write off ALL
of them as unwashed art school hacks who just don't know any better.

> The reason why art major MF photographers say that their digital backs are so
> good that they exceed the capabilities of their lenses is psychological:  they
> need to justify the astronomical amounts of MONEY those backs cost.   If it
> cost that much money its resolution must be incredibly, phenomenally,
> supercalifragilistically stupendous!

And the reason many technicians seem compelled to hide behind lp/mm charts
is fear. Fear when they see high-end digital and realize, "damn, that looks
really good!" Fear that just when they thought they understood the old
technology, they have to learn a new one. Fear that the old imposing
technical walls are down, and with affordable, high-quality, easy-to-use
modern equipment, even more "art majors" will now be able to do what THEY
do, and possibly do it better. You're right that it's psychological. Only it
has little to do with test lab superiority, and everything to do with
feelings of inferiority.

The answer is for both sides to take a very deep breath. Film is not going
away. But high-quality digital is very much here. You don't have to stand up
and salute, but you do have to acknowledge the reality.

Speaking for the "artists" (and still using film, BTW!),

Doug
http://www.intrinsicpictures.com