Digital BW, The Print

Thanks everyone

A couple of things

- like a few others on the list, obsolescence is an issue for me.  I'd
like the technology to stabilise before investing.  Top end digital is
also very expensive compared to top end 35mm

- I use a Leica M7 (and recently also an Xpan).  I'd like to get a
digilux, but at the moment, it's spec.s are well off the pace (5
megapixel).  Actually, ideally, I'd like a digital M where I could use
my existing lens.  To be honest, I wouldn't go back to an SLR.  The
Leica Ms are beautiful camera's to use and suit my style of photography

- I love darkroom printing - both from an aesthetic point of view and
simply as a relaxant.  Scanning film gives me the best of both worlds
for the moment.

- how does a 16MP camera give a 48M 8 bit RGB image?  There's
something I don't understand about how megapixels translate into file
size.  Can someone explain?

- how does digital compare with film for low light?  I shot a jazz
series a few years ago - Tri X pushed to 1600, mostly shot at full
aperture, no flash.

- I'm a gentleman amateur, so film cost is not so much an issue given
the volume I shoot

- and, yes, spotting is something I can do without!!  Keeping the
neg.s clean helps.

- incidentally, I have Coolscan 4000ED with roll film adapter.  It's a
good scanner - although, the funny thing is, I think I was getting
sharper scans with my old Coolscan LS20...  Of course, they were also
at a lower resolution and were only 8 bit...  Wonder if Nikon has been
economising on the lens?

Regards
Gareth

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "digikdm"
<monroekd@h...> wrote:
>
> I spent several years scanning 35mm negatives with a top end Nikon 
> scanner and then with a Minolta 4000 dpi scanner(incidently, the Nikon 
> was much better despite an advertised higher resolution for the 
> Minolta).Earlier this year, I made the switch to a Canon 1ds Mark II, 
> their 16 megapixal camera. I can tell you that it blows scanned 35mm 
> out of the water. I have never used an Imacon or true drum scanner, but 
> certainly this is true of the high end consumer model scanners. 
> Additionally, I save hours of tedious spot cleaning of film scans. 
> Keeping my sensor clean and spot cloning a few scattered spots in a 
> digital image is a snap compared to cleaning a film scan with or 
> without dust removing scanner software( Digital Ice, etc).The 16MP 
> digital images blow up beautifully with Photoshop interpolation since 
> there is little to no noise.
> If you can afford the upfront costs, do youself a favor and take the 
> digital plunge. 
> Kevin Monroe
>