Digital BW, The Print

I remember being the "bad boy" about a month ago when I announced that 
I ordered at Canon 5D, which has the same well site pitch as my twin 1D 
Mark II's. I can EASILY make 12x18 BO prints on my Epson 4000 and Semi 
Matte papers with a light lacquer spray that look a lot like air-dried 
FB papers of my optical printing days of the last millenium. 
Photographers who see this think it's from 4x5 because of the lack of 
grain. When printed with max. of about a 50% interpolation in PSCS or 
CS2, with a whisper of USM, looks as good as anything I ever did with a 
Hasselblad or Sinar and a heck of a lot more time wasted making "stinky 
prints."

My point of the announcment was an enthusiasm about Full Frame (since I 
shoot mansion interiors) and the added 60% resolution at a reasonable 
price.

Remember that with B&W or Color FILM, you have historically been making 
a "perpetual lease" payment on your film cameras, which has made 
companies like Kodak rich. So, if you shoot a LOT of frames (at 
whatever square inches per frame is required by your/your client 
standards), digital capture represents a MUCH more economical 
alternative profided you have met or exceeded the requirements formerly 
occupied by film capture.

To each their own. Nikon can do just as well for more money, so there 
is no debate there. The photographer is the problem, not the name on 
the recording device.

Claude



<<I can see, for example, that a Canon v. Nikon debate could go over
the top.
>
> I, personally, would benefit from having the digital camera threads
stay on
> this forum to the extent they relate to B&W.  For example, my own
concern is
> the discontinuance of Technical Pan film and what I'll be able to
replace it
> with when.
>
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com