Digital BW, The Print

MY TWO CENTS:

If quality is any concern, don't worry about it.

I saw a small exibition of prints by Ian Adams, a nature 
photographer, that used a 6x7 format camera w/transparancy film 
(Fuji, if I remember correctly).

The photos were print on an Epson 9600 at 40"x60". Yes INCHES!

These photos were STUNNING! I was blown away by the quality.

So, I don't think you're crazy for considering the Pentax 67 and 
scanning the film to be printed. I'm sure you'll spend a lot less on 
a Pentax 67 outfit and a Nikon 9000 scanner than you would on a MF 
digital outfit that would cost $10-30,000 for a digital back.

Scott



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields" 
<picnic@c...> wrote:
> After as much research as possible, I decided to just ask the 
> question here---very basic but perplexing for me.
> 
> I am a (relatively) long time digital photographer--I came from 
film 
> (35mm)--but haven't shot film in quite a number of years.  I never 
> had a darkroom--and don't intend to now.  I'm quite proficient in 
PS, 
> use Quadtone RIP for printing b/w with my 2200 (a larger format 
> printer will come eventually, but not the immediate future).  BUT--
> I've recently gotten the itch to buy a Pentax 67 as the prices go 
> lower and lower--but just am not totally sure of the workflow to 
get 
> it from camera to printer (and if there is more than one way to 
skin 
> a cat).      
> 
> Of course, the other question is--is this even reasonable to 
> consider.  I currently shoot with a Canon 20D--have considered FF 
but 
> will not make the jump to it with the new 5D--not right now 
anyhow.  
> I've prepared a list of pros and cons for the used 67--but, because 
> I'm digitally minded, will print digitally--is this just crazy?
> 
> I've been reading the John Sexton thread too, but really couldn't 
> find anything else on the forum while searhing that addresses this--
> and the pros/cons.