Digital BW, The Print

IMO conversion to digital is simply a possibility, like B&W Vs color...

Unfortunately, digital camerawork does seem to incline photographers
to repetitive macrophotography (bugs, flowers) and mundane scenics.
However, it seems the "only way" professionally...I'm confronting that
at the moment, which is a problem because I believe the new/current
digital Nikons/Canons will be undesirable in a year.

The severe shortcomings of digital (eg involving exposure index, wide
lenses, physical bulk of higher level digital cameras) make it less
suitable for many situations than film. I'm sure this will change
dramatically when current Nikons/Canons are retired.

Many of us are thrilled with the incredibly fine films that have been
introduced only recently, easily enabling beautiful color and B&W
rated at 1600 and 3200. 

As obviously, many of us need physically small cameras with
24mm-and-wider lenses, many of us want our standard lenses to be
rectilinear, and many of us don't find the inferior viewfinders of
most digital cameras acceptable. 

Unfortunately the only digital camera that approaches certain specific
professional/amateur requirements, long met by film, seems the Epson,
which is a bit junky and of course doesn't have enough resolution to
properly serve the lenses.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>
> Both very good reasons for non-pros also.
> 
> 
> > From: Scott McLoughlin <scott@a...>
> > 
> > Processing speed and the cost of consumables most likely accounts for
> > the vast majority of conversion among "pros."
> > 
> > Scott
> > 
> > Bert Katzung wrote:
> > 
> >> Why is that 95% of pros have switched to digital?
>