Digital BW, The Print

Roger.  If you live in the U.S. I'd be happy to mail you a CD with a few
Nikon scans and DSLR RAW files and you can see for yourself how they print
(I print to a 2200 now).  They will be unprocessed so you will need
Photoshop.  The DSLR is addictive and gives very high image quality (with
high quality lenses), but with film you get a considerably larger file and
get to use faster lenses for the most part.  Kind of depends on what sort of
photography you do.  For 35mm film my favorite is Kodak C-41 b&w.  I haven't
had that much luck converting color negs to b&w, though of course that is
necessary with a DSLR.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: roger98195 [mailto:roger98195@...] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:23 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Film vs Digital Capture
> 
> I am interested in hearing opinions on the relative merits of 
> film versus digital capture for images to be printed in B&W.
> 
> How would an image captured on 35 mm film and scanned with a 
> Nikon Coolscan V compare to an image captured directly on a 6 
> mp Digital SLR?
> 
> For those who use film, do you prefer to use B&W or color 
> film? What are your favorite films?
> 
> It seems to me that color digital capture or color film 
> capture would offer more control over the image when brought 
> into Photoshop and converted to B&W using the channel mixer.
> 
> Thaks,
> 
> Roger