Digital BW, The Print

Hello Diane.
For whatever it's worth, my take on your question is that it is truly
dependent on what you expect to be your future needs. If you work with
images and do a lot of what "real photographers--{:grin}" would
consider sacriligious, you might not ever need the level of detail
available in the larger sized negatives. On the other hand if you are
going for large prints and extreme detail you can get it with film in
larger sizes. The way you work and time available for it is a
consideration as well. Large cameras stick out in public and attract
attention by comparison with the smaller ones. They are a pain to
carry around, can be hard to protect both physically and from theft
and you are not likely to haul one off to work with you every day
unless using it IS your job. In my particular case, I own and have
used everything from 4x5 on down to 35mm both professionaly and for
personal work. The 4x5's and 6x6 slr's get taken out only occasionally
and exercised. I do use a 6x7 rangefinder fairly freaquently as well
as several little 6x6 folders I keep in vehicles under the seat. Most
of the work I do, however, ends up being done with 35mm for a number
of reasons, the primary one of which is that I take a camera
everywhere just on the chance I "might" get to indulge myself and do
what I enjoy so much.
The conversations on "contempletive use" srike me as a bit amusing.
One can shotgun with a (pick your size--any size) very easily so I
don't see that as relevent.
Take note though, that if you embark on the mf journey it may well be
 an endless one with a dark and twisted path to who knows what end.;) 

Regards
Duane




--- 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.  
> 
> I'm grateful for everyone's input.  I've been on this list for
years---and have learned so much.  I'm perhaps not as obsessive as
some of you that came from 'wet' darkrooms, but I am a very visual
person and am very interested in the best I can get from my images.
> 
> Diane Fields
>   Personally, I'm not doing much if any new film work now.  I can get
>   images with the DSLR that I could not have made with the
cumbersome MF and
>   LF cameras.  Free, free at last from the tripod.  In addition,
tools such as
>   Convert to B&W Pro and ImagePrint make good b&w digital prints a
reality.
> 
>     --Ken
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]