Digital BW, The Print

> You may "feel" that way, but it's simply not reality, unless something is
> wrong with the film method you are comparing to.  Now, don't take that to
> mean that the images from a 1Ds can't be superb, most certainly they can be.

I should have clarified that with more detail - I often shot on moderately fast films, and 
with lower quality 'glass' than I now use so the jump in performance from the move to a 
1Ds is a bit more reasonable -- and so it should be for that much money!

I am loathe to try and make detailed (quantitative) comparisons, since to me it is the 
quality of the final product (from my own artistic point of view) that matters.

I think I'd prefer not to get drawn into detailed comparisons too much (which can get a bit 
too much like arguing politics some times :-)

For the larger prints I used the up-sampling in PS Raw to get images that print at 240dpi.

Quite a lot of people have commented on the level of detail in some of my landscape work, 
although I suspect they were not used to such huge prints :-)

I look forward to the 1Ds Mk2 when the detail gets even more 'real' - that or I win the 
lottery and move to MF digital - but then I'd have to take a tripod with me more often, 
which I generally hate.


bye for now

Keith Cooper