Digital BW, The Print

Don,

I received your sample prints that you created using this approach.  
I can honestly say that I could not detect much of a difference 
between the BO print and the piezography print. IMO, both prints 
were sharp and had nice tonality.

As you know, I am considering the Canon Digital Rebel. But, I am not 
convinced that this is the best tool for my objectives. Recently, 
I've strongly considered purchasing a Medium Format range finder 
such as the Mamiya 7II or the Bronica RF645.

What is my objective?

To create fine art quality 13x19 prints. My subject matter is my 
family and travel.

Why am I considering the Rebel?

1) Convenience
2) Excellent Reputation
3) I can leverage my current Canon lenses
4) Econonmics - no film, no scanning, no hassle
5) Digital is the future
6) I am willing take more chances and learn from mistakes since the 
price for doing so is low.

Why am I considering the MF Rangefinder?

1) Scannning a 6x4.5 or 6x7 negative at 3200 dpi enables a large 
file for printing at 13 x 19.

2) Lens quality, optics, and overall image quality from the Medium 
Format is better than the 6 MP digital.  Can anyone disagree?

3) My perception is that most fine art black and white photographers 
use either a medium format or large format camera.  Is there an 
equivalent camera in the Digital space?

If I go with the Rebel, the largest image I can print at 300 DPI is 
10.24 x 6.8 (3072/300 x 2048/300).  Is there any reason not to use 
Interpolation to increase the file size to 13 x 19 while maintaining 
300 dpi?

Thanks,
David





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "D. Hill" 
<hill14701@y...> wrote:
> Val,
> 
> I use a 10d with the original piezography/R9 plug-in,
> and my common sizes for printing is 4x6 and 6x9.  With
> the plug-in, I really see no need to print with
> conventional methods.  Tonally and aesthetically, they
> are very similar.  When enlarging, I utilized Ilford
> fibre based matte VC papers - the matte papers used
> for piezography give the same look in my images.
> 
> This is the greatest benefit to the 6mp cameras - no
> film costs, no associated developing costs (and no
> losses in developing), no scanning and therefore no
> dust/scratch removal - the resulting images are sharp.
>  After using the 10d/piezography, I sold my 35mm
> systems and haven't looked back.
> 
> I have not used the Piezography ICC system yet - but
> as the MIS UT-2 for the 1280 is available and seems to
> be a more versatile solution for the epson driver,
> I'll give that a shot soon to compare notes with the
> plug-in for small images.
> 
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> > Questions:
> > 
> > 1.) Has anyone on this forum compared the piezo
> > "small print"
> > quality from 35mm/6+ mp digital versus 100 and 400
> > ASA film scanned
> > at 4000 dpi? At 5x7, is there noticable/significant
> > quality
> > differences in the resulting print?
> > 
> > 2.) Assuming there are folks on this list that are
> > using the
> > 35mm/6+ mp cameras...what is your overall
> > satisfaction level with
> > this tool matched with the piezo system?
> > 
> > Thanks...Val
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree