Digital BW, The Print

Christer Rosewelll writes:

> At a recent show at NOMA (New Orleans museum of Art) I had people in
> front of my prints all the time, asking of they were shot on film or  
> digital - no one - and I mean no one could tell which print was shot  
> with what - and these were  photographers, art people, curators and  
> "regular" folks.

In many contexts, digital and film are impossible to distinguish from
each other.

> The prints were all  13 x 19 printed on an Epson 2200, 7600 and a 9600
> on archival paper - some of them shot with Hasselblad, some with a 3.1
> MB Canon (D30) and some with a 10D and some with a 1Ds. The general  
> comment was "wow - these look like they are ALL shot on film".

Well, that could be good or bad, couldn't it?

> So much for the "digital is inferior and always have that Digital look"!

If film is inferior to digital, then saying "these look like they were
shot on film" means that the digital shots look pretty bad, doesn't it?