Digital BW, The Print

>I'll confess, I'm a film die hard.

I'm not. But I still haven't got a digital camera, because first I 
couldn't tell how best, and then I couldn't tell when best, to start 
to make the transition from film-only to primarily digital. I still 
can't, but I think only because I'm being more than usually neurotic 
about it.


>But I recently saw a very impressive print from a Canon 16 megapixel SLR.
>
>It would have been maybe 1.2 x 40 cm.
>
>Now, logic tells me film should be better.  I scan a B&W image at 4000
>dpi - it resolves down to a level where the grain is just perceptible
>as film grain using Tri X developed in Xtol.  That yields a 42MB file
>with 16 bit grayscale.  And that's B&W so a colour file would be
>around 120MB.
>
>So, how can a 16 megapixel colour image (say 6MB grayscale image)
>compete with a 42MB file?
>
>Is this correct or am I missing something?
>
>Cheers
>Gareth

I think the answer is yes and yes, Gareth, because the difference 
goes beyond the number of pixels and the logic has to chew on those 
differences as well as on file size. The conclusion is hard to 
believe, especially since we have some resistance to it, but for most 
shots, I don't think it's any longer in doubt.

That's not to say you can't do things with film you can't do with 
digital though. So why not jump in, find out what those things are, 
and enjoy the best of both technologies as far as you can afford to 
duplicate your investment in the film work flow?
--
Sam

P.S. You didn't say which scanner you're using, and I need a new one ... . 8)