Digital BW, The Print

At 10:01 AM 12/28/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Let me begin by saying that I, too am not interested in starting a film vs 
>digital thread.  Just a few comments aimed at Val's post.
>One comment that "bothers" me is that need to have 35mm, street photos, 
>needing to approach some large format "look", which I assume is why you're 
>not making prints larger than 5x7.  I , too do "street" photography (since 
>1983).  Prior to that, from 1975 thru 1983 I shot with a 4x5 view camera 
>b&w only.
>If you look at the masters of "street" photography, Cartier Bresson, 
>Robert Frank, William Klein, Andre Kertesz, Lee Friedlander, Gary 
>Winogrand, just to name a few.  What gives the image its "zest" for lack 
>of a better word, but one of those images where you just look at it and 
>say "wow" I think is the graininess, the blurr, the overall texture of the 
>print.  I think if one of the great photos by any of the photographers 
>mentioned "looked" like an 8x10 c0ntact print, I would somehow be disapointed.
>Not to belabor this point, my early work was all large format and very 
>precise, It's certainly much "freeier" now and more spontaneous.
>Anyway, I'm printing 35 mm images to 17x27 inches on my 7600, both b&w and 
>color with IP matte inks on sommerset velvet, and I think that they look 
>absolutely incredible.  If fact the large size prints look much more "3 
>dimensional" than small prints of the same image.
>Don't fear the grain or texture , go for it.
>I recently asked a few "lists" about comparing the output of a 35mm 
>scanned neg (either T max 400 or fuji cz800) and that of a capture with a 
>fuji Finepix S2.  Everyone who responded thought that the Fuji cature 
>looked better ( I was asking about large prints 24 x 30) I did borrow a 
>Fuji and gave it a try.  I was disapointed with the "digital" look.  I did 
>find the look "smoother", but something seemed lacking to my eye in the 
>overall "look".  Particularly in the shadows, I would get a slight 
>posterization.   I realize its all subjective, and I have no axe to grind, 
>but I'm sticking with 35 mm neg film for now.
>Just my 2 cents, but I can't imagine seeing a print by William Klein or 
>Robert Frank all smooth and perfectly focused.
>David Aschkenas

David,

I'm in substantial agreement with your thoughts re the classic street 
style.  It would be wrong (aesthetically whacked!) to try and emulate that 
with PS and a digital camera.
As a digital virgin - having just gotten a Canon A70 from Santa I'm having 
fits simply trying to get a candid picture with the freaking digital lag 
time! I may resort to shooting bursts of three. There is another level of 
concern (I don't mind a digital v. film dialog here :-))  and that is the 
fact that digital images are virtual and film images are "real." To me that 
is a big, important difference.

Regarding larger blow-ups I have friends with 5M cams who do enormous color 
ink jet prints that are stunning. They have a distinct digital look when 
examined closely.
I say "so what" to that. Us poor wind mill tilters looking to do excellent 
B/W reliably will soon achieve the same glory.

Did anyone see the current N.G.. aviation issue?  It was their first 
all-digital shoot. Check out the actual mag.. Tell me if I'm full of it, 
but I swear
every image had a distinct "outline" effect around adjacent large tonal 
areas. I'm probably not describing that well, but take a look.  Is that an 
artifact of the camera or reproduction?

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us