Digital BW, The Print

there is limit to this, you know?  If the red dot is much smaller 
than what you can see with your naked eye on your enlarged print it 
doesn't matter.  Also, with the resolving power of digitals starting 
to beat 35mm color negative films, who cares if you are theoretically 
missing something in a DSLR image that you couldn't pick up with a 
35mm SLR anyway?  Ok, an 8x10" negative will beat out digital images 
for a very very long time, but who cares again?  That is not a 
reasonable comparison.  I agree that a 6MP DSLR will not match 
traditional b&w prints *yet*, but they come really really close to 
matching or beating prints from scanned b&w negatives...

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt 
<tprevatt@m...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Look, if an scene contains a red dot that happens to fall on a 
blue sensor
> > element, you won't see it. No one denies that. 
> 
> I think there is some contradiction between the statement above and 
the 
> one below. That is the exact point that has been made about 
information 
> not captured can not be created by interpolation.
> 
> >
> >
> > They don't remove 2/3 of the information; they remove 2/3 of the 
data. 
> 
> 
> Truman