Digital BW, The Print

Mark Hahn writes:

> 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.

That's true, but unless you know exactly how much an image will be
enlarged and you're sure that you have all the information the eye will
be able to see in that enlargement, it is prudent to capture as much
information as possible, just in case.

There is no disputing that a matrix filter removes 2/3 of the image
information.  Color resolution is very poor through such a filter.  The
human eye works in a similar way and this makes the defects less
noticeable, but they will still show on close examination.  Any sensor
or sensor system that captures all three primary colors for every pixel
will produce images that are superior in every way to those produced by
a matrix filter.

And, just not to be too far off topic, I should point out that the
defects of a matrix filter damage black and white images as well.  Two
thirds of the information missing is two thirds missing, even in black
and white.

> Also, with the resolving power of digitals starting to beat 35mm color
> negative films ...

The resolving power of digital cameras comes nowhere close to 35mm film.

I don't understand why people who prefer digital insist on arguing that
the greatest defects of digital are somehow it's greatest assets.  Why
not concentrate on the assets of digital instead.  The weakest points of
digital are resolution and color, and yet many people seem to be
determined to "prove" that digital does this better than film, when the
undeniable fact is that it does them worse.

Try concentrating on speed, lack of grain, or something like that to
support digital.  At least in those respects, it's superior to film, so
you aren't trying to push water uphill with a fork.

> ... who cares if you are theoretically missing something in a
> DSLR image that you couldn't pick up with a 35mm SLR anyway?

But you can pick all of this up with a 35mm SLR, and more.  If that were
not true, nobody would be shooting film, since film has very little to
recommend it beyond image quality.  Of course, for many photographers,
image quality is a sine qua non of their work.

> Ok, an 8x10" negative will beat out digital images
> for a very very long time, but who cares again?

People who need top quality.  See

http://www.dougsalin.com

for good examples of large-format film photography.

> That is not a reasonable comparison.

Why not?  For someone shooting LF, it's a vital comparison.  Suggesting
that he throw away all that image quality just to join the digital boys'
club makes no sense.

> 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...

My scans from B&W 35mm film are just under 22 megapixels, and I'm not
getting everything on the film. Digital doesn't come anywhere close. No
need to mention what I'm getting from MF film.