Digital BW, The Print

Ken -- you make some very good points as does the very balanced 
article at Clarkvision.com. It confirms for me that I am not yet 
ready to plunge into digital camera's. However I would be there like 
a shot if I were a wildlife photographer. Presently I have the time 
to spend on afterwork which is very considerable with scanned film. 
If I didn't then digital would become essential.
I await the 25MP digital camera for below $2000! Will I be waiting 
forever?? LOL.

Pete

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "kenstrain2000" 
<kenstrain2000@y...> wrote:
>
> You could have a look at the measurements presented at 
clarkvision.com
> on this subject, for example, (although mainly about colour there is
> some info on B&W). Then you could think how to exploit the benefits
> and avoid the problems with your style of photography.  It is very
> likely possible if you want to, of course not for every possible 
style.
> 
> It is not hard to put noise in your skies if you desire.  Nor are
> blown highlights mandatory.  Digital capture is just another tool 
and
> not a bad one (of course film is fine too).  
> 
> For some subjects I can get great resolution from my digital 
cameras 
> (>10k pixel square images or more from a cheap DSLR using panorama
> tools) -better than I ever got from my SL66. Doesn't suit your 
style?
> No problem!  
> 
> What about "combinez" for as much depth of field as with large 
format
> tilting? Too much work?  I'd argue not much more work than it took 
to
> dev a 4x5 sheet in two-bath.   
> 
> Half way through a day the light changes from "Tech Pan"  to "Delta
> 400" - no problem, I can make characteristic curves as I like in the
> raw converter much better than I ever could with mono developers 
etc. 
> Also a mistake does not ruin the "whole film".  
> 
> Want more dynamic range? Well neg film has great dynamic range but
> appalling resolution in the shadows. Easy (in principle) to mimik 
that
> by using noise reduction in the shadows (actually very tricky to get
> it right, I find, but I think that is my lack of competance). Or by
> stacking images (hard though, even for static subjects).
> 
> For me the two real advantages of digital capture are the 30 times 
or
> so better sensitivity to light (OK, not with quite the same
> resolution, yet, a factor of ~2 to go there), and the option to 
choose
> the characterisitic curve.    The former is invaluable on a mountain
> top, the latter helps a lot in many lighting conditions.
> A big disadvantage is initial purchase cost, but it is getting 
there,
> slowly.  
> 
> Great fun and very rewarding.  Not a replacement in all respects.  
> 
> Ken
>