Digital BW, The Print

Diane,
  I shoot most of my BW (which by anyone's standards is woefully little),
using a 4x5 field camera. I also have a 20D, which I use for all
sorts of photography.  No doubt the 4x5 wins - big surprise. It is easy
to scan on a desktop scanner (an EPSON 3200), whereas 35 mm does
not scan very sharply at all.  I like the tons of small detail that comes from
the large format. One thing I don't see mentioned much, is that the
printers can really print with a lot of resolution. You can see the difference
in the print from large files with lots of data, even in a relatively 
small print. Not to say that the smaller formats - digital or film -
can't make a nice large image. It is more a  question of visible detail. And
the ease in which you can transfer it to paper.

A great way to see whether a larger format will make any difference 
to your final product is to try printing some big files. There are a large
number of scans in the library of congress. For
example, some of my favorites are Lewis Hines' images of children
working in mills. Or the Wright brother's plane. You can download scans
of their glass plates - 5x7 usually. I have used these for test prints
sometimes when trying to tweak  the printer. Download a couple of
these and print them to see if they look any different than your
current equipment. These ancient images look just wonderful and
I think show off what a print from a big piece of film looks like.
There are also test images from big Dslrs (say on dpreview) that you can
download and compare. Never know which one you will like best.

A view camera does take a lot more work than a hand held SLR, 
whether digital or not. Once you start putting the camera on a tripod,
and with practice, the difference is somewhat less. After getting used
to the view camera, and this is a big point, you feel like you have much
less control of the camera when you don't have movements.  Sure, the
bigger format needs the movements to get acceptable depth of field,
but all in all there are just more choices than deciding what's in the
frame. That's fun and useful to some people, not so to others.

Hope that adds something to the thread.

Costa




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields" <picnic@c...> 
wrote:
> Ken, I am, indirectly, asking about this also.  I understand that there is bias on all sides, 
but I also would like input from all sides.  I can remain 'all digital' or I can veer off and 
incorporate film/MF also---but realize that I will have to incorporate a whole new support 
system for a different format--and that's not inexpensive.  I'm quite good at PS---and 
have done b/w conversions for a number of years, so that's not the issue.  The real issue 
is---will I find that I will end up with a 'better' image than I can with digital.  Today, the 
assumption by the salesperson was that I'm not 'contemplative' about my photography--
with the reality that that is part of most people's approach to digital--lots of shots on a 
card, etc.  However---I AM slow, contemplative, etc.--its part of my creative nature (if you 
spent over 20 years as a textile artist/craftsperson with the many MANY layers of 
'process'---you learn how to plan and never ever have quick gratification).  So--I'm trying 
to determine where I want to go with this--and I am most interested in the b/w print.