Digital BW, The Print

Ernst,

You wrote, in part:

>...
> what's possible with his 20D. I could still beat it with the Iskra 6x6 ...

Yes, especially if fine detail and resolution are most significant.  

But, the question for me may be: How much of the typical 16 x 20 inch fine
art image is affected by the resolution beyond what this 8 mp camera can
capture?  

I made a set of comparison prints using the Rebel and various medium format
camera and films.  My sampling of an admittedly limited group of typical,
educated (but not photo-obsessed) types suggests they don't see much of the
fine detail advantage that the film technically holds.  

The limiting factor or artifact that everyone seemed to see the most in my
sample prints was the grain of the 100 ISO film.  

"Sharpness" -- from even a close, "book-reading" distance -- is about a draw
between my unprocessed, Nikon 8000 scanned, medium format film prints and 8
mp versions.  I can see the difference, but it's probably not going to be
visible in 16 x 20" real world prints.

What I have found with my old Tmax 100 medium format negatives is the extent
to which the grain limited me.  If one looks at the photograph as an
information medium and what we do as information processing, I want the
maximum useable information to be accessible to the viewer as easily as
possible.  For this, I want the best signal-to-noise ratio over the
"relevant" frequencies.  The relevance of the frequencies is probably a bell
curve that changes with viewing distance and image size -- and it's probably
heavily skewed to the lower frequencies in prints that are judged in part on
their "artistic" merit.  The peak of that bell curve and, perhaps,  95% of
the area under that curve seem to be well within what the 8 mp Rebel can do
very easily, even at a 16 x 20 size.

I'm currently of the opinion that this relatively cheap little Canon Digital
Rebel XT (aka 350D), even with its 18 - 55 mm II zoom, has just knocked off
most of my medium format film-camera combos for most situations.  

The low noise of the Canon sensor is a huge part of the formula.  (I'm not
sure how good the other sensors are.  I suspect this may be where Canon
kills Kodak.  I think Kodak poured money into CCD technology, which was once
thought to be the low-noise leader, but which suffered other disadvantages.
Among other things, CCD technology has, apparently, not as directly
benefited from the CMOS microprocessor and memory R&D and advances.)  

Combining the Canon's inherently low noise I've seen so far with the ease
with which I can multi-sample on a tripod, and the limiting factor of the
grain in 100 ISO film virtually kills the currently existing film market for
me.  My freezer full of TP may be the end of film for me.  

Of course, the real world use of this camera may change my opinions.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 




__________________________________

> Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> >
> >I think MF Tech Pan is still my ultimate in quality, but there is no
> reason
> >to bother with MF Tmax 100, which is now the finest grain camera film
> Kodak
> >makes since it discontinued Tech Pan.  So, I'm saving the stockpile of TP
> >for when I really want to go to 22 x 28 or above, and the Rebel is going
> to
> >replace my "quick and easy" Fuji GA 645 Zi that used to have higher-speed
> >film in it for the occasional hand held shot.
> >
> >Paul
> >www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Printed some color prints of a Canon 20D on the Epson 10000 (MIS 7600
> inks) with Qimage extrapolation and sharpening. I wasn't surprised by
> the quality but my customer was very surprised, his 2100 and Photoshop
> (on a Mac) couldn't use all the information available, now he knows
> what's possible with his 20D. I could still beat it with the Iskra 6x6
> and wet mount scans on the Nikon 8000 but it takes a lot more work.
> 
> Ernst
>