Digital BW, The Print

The article in Luminous landscape (at a quick glance) seems to 
highlight what in my opinion is the biggest drawback of digital 
cameras -- ie. the limited dynamic range of the sensor. We can burn 
down blown highlights (eg clouds) with negative film. In fact a C41 
process b&w film gives us the ability to record detail in the 
brightest highlights and deepest shadows. Blown highlights and 
blocked shadows have no place in landscape photography and as such I 
am not ready to make the digital leap. 
I have 300 feet of Tech Pan in the freezer to use on lower contrast 
subjects and teamed with my Zeiss lenses (35mm) and 5400dpi scanner I 
have no worries about big enlargements. The only digicam files I have 
handled came from the D70. I am impressed by the apparent sharpness 
(down to acutance ie. in camera sharpening rather than resolution). 
The out of focus areas are not as pretty as those recorded by my 
Zeiss lenses and I am troubled by the plasticity of smooth blue skies 
etc (I was brought up on grain). Blown highlights rear their nasty 
head in most files I have handled.
The camera handling was awful compared to my Contax RX and AX bodies.
I am sure the day will come when I make the transition but I am not 
ready yet by a long way. The biggest benefit will be being freed from 
hours of cleaning dust (cloning) though I feel I bond with the 
pictures during this lengthy process! I wonder if all those digital 
files so easily recorded and filed away after a weekend's shooting 
get another look!
I would be interested to know if I am talking garbage -- I admit I 
have limited experience of the subject. I'll stick with film for now -
- "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

Pete.




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "garethjolly" 
<garethjolly@y...> wrote:
>
> Yes, it's a bit distressing to see the big names of the film world
> falling like flies.  Have to find a replacement for Agfa FB.  I'm 
also
> conscious that Leica needs to get seriously into digital or go 
under.
> 
> I wasn't aware of the Epson.  Interesting article on it here
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
> 
> Think I'll hold out a little longer - my golden rule on all things
> computer related is to never buy before you have to.  I think I 
could
> be tempted by a digilux with greater resolution than 5MP.
> 
> In the meantime, though, I have to try to master my scanner and 
R2400!
> And either find a decent source for Epson VFA in Sydney or work out
> how to use the Hahnmuele.  And work out a way of presenting my Xpan
> images big... 
> 
> Thanks for all of the advice on the above, by the way.
> 
> Regards
> Gareth
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Adam Maas
> <mykroft@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, there's always the Epson RD-1, which is an M mount digital 
> > rangefinder.
> > 
> > -Adam
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Kip Babington wrote:
> > > I too would have liked a digital M, but gave up hope several 
years ago
> > > and bought into the digital Nikon SLR world (to keep using my
> > > accumulation of Nikon lenses.)  There was considerable 
discussion on
> > > some of the Leica forums I used to visit (before I sold all my 
Leica,
> > > Nikon, Minox and Rollei film gear) that covered the 
technological in
> > > feasibility of successfully (i.e., usefully) mounting a digital 
sensor
> > > in a Leica-dimensioned body, given the current state of the 
art. 
> Epson
> > > made (still makes?) a digital rangefinder with a Leica mount but
> with a
> > > reduced-size sensor (smaller than 24x36mm) and so the delightful
> size of
> > > an M6 with a 35mm Summicron doesn't get you the same wide angle 
of
> view
> > > in the Epson that your get with film Leica.  The consensus of 
the
> > > technically knowledgeable  at the time was that the laws of 
physics
> > > simply precluded the production of digital sensors in 24x36 
size that
> > > would work with existing Leica lenses at the lens-to-film
> distances used
> > > in the Leica rangefinders.  Sigh.
> > > 
> > > As for the obsolescence point, remember that a camera that 
takes fine
> > > pix today will take just as fine pix next year, even if there's 
a
> > > "better" model available next year.  Better models are announced
> > > continually in the digital world (who knows when, if ever, that 
will
> > > end) and by the time they're actually available in stores there
> > > frequently are at least rumors of even better models right 
around the
> > > corner.  Again, if it would be a good tool today, it will be a
> good tool
> > > tomorrow.  I paid full list for my Nikon D100 when it came out,
> and now
> > > I could buy it for half (if it's even still available) but I've 
had
> > > several years of wonderful use from it so far, and have no
> intentions of
> > > replacing it in the near future as it does what I need it to do.
> > > 
> > > I kept all of my film gear for more than a year after I got my
> D100, and
> > > after not taking a single frame of film in that time decided to 
let it
> > > go.  I was surprised that it didn't bother me in the least to 
let
> it go
> > > (I had had one of them, a Leica IIIc, since the 1950s) and I 
have not
> > > missed it in the years since.  I had a fair bit of Leica gear,
> including
> > > an M6 with 7 lenses (2 of them for the Visoflex - hard core!) 
and
> loved
> > > both having and using it, but the ease of MY getting better
> results with
> > > digital made it easy to let go.  I used to go through about 250
> rolls of
> > > B&W film a year (and about 1 roll of color every 2 years) and 
did
> all my
> > > own developing and printing.  I now take MORE images digitally 
each
> > > year, "process" them much more quickly (a dozen or more contact 
sheets
> > > of a weekend's shooting hung up to dry within an hour or two of
> sitting
> > > down at the computer, and most of that time the software is 
compiling
> > > the contacts while I'm reading email) and create better looking
> (to ME)
> > > prints faster and easier than I ever did in a wet darkroom.
> > > 
> > > Of course, YMMV.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Kip
> > > 
> > > garethjolly wrote, in part:
> > > 
> > >  >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.
> > >  ><snip>
> > >  >
> >
>