Digital BW, The Print

Hi Ken,

> So far, the b&w
> prints, to my
> eye, have more range than prints from scans from 35mm made with the Nikon
> 4000ED scanner or the Eversmart, or darkroom prints.  This is primarily
> TriX/D761:1 with good glass.  My printer is an Epson 2200 with UC inks and
> the ImagePrint RIP.

Then something is wrong...  Many people use 35mm B&W for scanning (which may
more be an issue with your scanner than anything else) and get superb
results.

> I don't do much
> 120 since
> I don't see the point, i.e., if you're going to have a big camera with a
> slow lens, a 4x5 field kit takes up less space than a Hasselblad outfit.

I disagree with both points.  A Hasselblad is smaller and easier to use than
a 4x5 field camera, and does not require a tripod...and uses roll film.
Also, why do MF lenses have to be slow?  I shoot with a 110/2, hardly a slow
lense.  There are a lot of advantages to a Hasselblad over 35mm (and 4x5).
Compared to 35mm, you get a much larger negative, therefore less grain, and
you get less depth of field...and you get a lot more negative to scan, and
therefore can make much larger prints.  Compared to 4x5, you get easier use,
more lense selections, faster lenses, use of roll film...no tripod required,
built-in metering...  Now, you may prefer a 4x5 field camera, and that is,
of course, fine.

Unless you are using a monochromatic sensor, film will always perform far
better (in almost any regard of image quality) than any Bayer pattern
digicamera, at this point in time.

Regards,

Austin