Digital BW, The Print

I don't see how that observation could be challenged, short of assuming 
sloppy technique.  It doesn't make film 'better', or the final images 
necessarily preferable, but 35 mm film/lenses can record roughly 4-10x 
as much information as a DSLR.  I've read several analyses, but this is 
based on my own tests.

Excellent 35mm lenses can record 120-140 lp/mm on film - actual, not 
theoretical, without 'artifacts'.  Excellent 35mm DSLR 40-60 lp/mm, 
with artifacts.  Even a relatively inexpensive scanner (Minolta 5400) 
can read 100 lp/mm, again actual observed.  The math is trivial, and 
sectional prints confirm it (I don't make very large prints).

Yes, I use my DSLR almost exclusively these days, and I'm pleased with 
the results.

Dan

On Aug 21, 2004, at 2:27 PM, kcooper666 wrote:

> > > So in spite of the wonders of digital, which I use for some
>  > > things, and the big prints that various users are happy with,  
> film has
>  > > dramatically more
>  > > resolution.
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]