Digital BW, The Print

Paul-

I shoot a lot of 4x5 Polaroid Type 55 and color negative film; using an 
Imacon to scan. I had to work my way into the Imacon, ultimately realizing that the 
difference in quality was too apparent to ignore. It wasn't just the pixel 
count, which you nicely summarize in your post, but the dynamic range and the 
quality of the software (which is often overlooked or marginalized, but very 
important).

Our students use Microtek flatbeds for their sheet film and they do an 
excellent job for the money (I like the Microtek design and the software, properly 
used, is okay). They easily learn to think about the scan, to previsualize 
their exposure and development accordingly.

The real issue for me had little to do with an struggle between pixels and 
film, wet or digital darkroom. I'd been waiting my entire adult life to print 
images with ink on paper and have access to many digital cameras. The issue is 
the camera and how it fits what I do, and how it affects the quality of my 
interactions with people (even when I'm not photographing them). For my work, 
there isn't a digital equivalent--yet--to a 4x5 field camera and film. I'm 
assuming that will change, perhaps sooner than I think. Someone will produce a cost 
effective (I'll measure that in relationship to the Imacon) digital back for a 
4x5 field camera that is almost as easy to use as my Polaroid and Kodak 
readyload backs. I'll go digital capture when it doesn't intrude on the psychology 
of the moment.



Bill Kennedy
Associate Professor of Photocommunications
St. Edward's University
512/448-8680


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]