Digital BW, The Print

Rick,
not to argue, but my initial statements were well considered-
> > The difference is that now I have very much more depth of field
for a
> > given image quality, no struggles with scanning and no dust spots
(wow
> > yes!). 
> 
> Unless you never change lenses or have dedicated bodies for each
lens
> dust on CCDs can be, in my experience, just as bad, if not worse,
than film.
> The same dust pattern on a CCD will be on ALL files.

Somehow this seems to affect some more than others. I am fortunate to
have very minor dust troubles with my digital SLR and 4
frequently-interchanged lenses, compared to dust in drying film and
scanning.  OK, so I should not have generalised, sounds like you had a
bad experience.   

> 
> > And, mainly, *much better prints* (but I don't print 40x60).
> > The quality issue is fundamental - sensors are many times more
> > sensitive to light than any film, in some styles of photography
this
> > matters, in others it matters not at all.
>

> Sensor sensitivity is only part of the equation. Contrast and
exposure
> latitude and tonal scale and palette of a given recording medium
are, I
> think, more important. Similar to the difference between cinema and
> video.

I'm not going to prove to you that my prints are better now, but they
are. This is partly due to the improved quantum efficiency that leads
directly to shorter exposures when working at the depth of
field/diffraction limit (as I usually do). The wind can blow harder
without blurring the leaves; the tripod carried to the mountain top
can be much lighter. I see that Diane often takes pictures with things
that could move in the wind (nice photos on pbase).  I've compared
(measured) long tonal scale negatives developed with various
developers (including staining ones), and I am not convinced that the
true dynamic range of any of them was higher than the 9 stops
available from my digital camera (with suitable processing which is,
however, nontrivial).  Of course the characteristic shape is
different, but I can now choose it - something that was difficult
before.  I note that the resolution of film is very poor in the
shadows, and when comparing dynamic range with digital it is necessary
to average over pixels in the shadows before comparing dynamic range
(to be fair).

For some subjects this does not matter at all and the higher
low-contrast resolution of film is more significant.   

Ken


> 
> 
> Rick 
> 
> www.richardmurai.com
> http://www.hawaii.edu/mjournal/text/issues/descr
iptions/cambodia04.html