Digital BW, The Print

Tim writes:

> To save on film and processing costs not to mention
> the thousands of negs and boxes that take up space.

You will certainly save on film and processing costs.  But there are other
disadvantages (such as a reduction in image quality) that also should be
considered.  And the initial investment is substantial, particularly if you
want the best possible image quality (so as to approach film as closely as
possible).

As far as I can tell, digital occupies about the same physical space as
film, in terms of archiving.

> I also do a lot of experimental shooting..lots of
> improvisation. I almost always get great stuff but
> I guess with the digi I could see right away what's
> working and what's not.

Digital is ideal for rapid experimentation.

> Plus if I'm not mistaken you can switch "film" speeds on
> the fly with digi.

Only to the same extent that you can push film with a change in development.

The image sensor in a digital camera has a fixed sensitivity; you cannot
change that.  Changing the ISO rating on the camera just boosts the signal
coming out of the image sensor.  This makes it possible to get usable
pictures in lower light, but it also can produce more visible noise in the
image, as well as a loss of tonality (from stretching a weak signal over a
wide range).

> I've seen some nice digi b/w work. I always shoot
> color film anyway and convert it to b/w in PS.

In that case, digital will not change anything for you in this respect.

> I'm thinking about the obvious duds. Not the
> borderline stuff. Is there a problem with deleting
> as you go that I should be aware of?

No, as long as you are careful about what you delete.  Obvious duds are not
much of a risk.  But if you aren't instantly certain that you don't want an
image, it might be better to keep it.  If you delete it and change your
mind, you're out of luck.  And subtle characteristics of images are hard to
judge on a tiny LCD screen.

> I think alot has changed since then.

Yes, but the image quality is still inadequate.  When the price/quality
ratio and absolute image quality of digital exceeds that of film, I'll
switch.

> The 10D is supposed to be a
> pretty darn good camera.

It is, until the next one comes along.