Digital BW, The Print

Well...

As the original poster, I frankly don't think it matters much.

What counts is the image.  It could be digital or film.  When we lose
sight of that, then - for all our resolution and exposure latitude -
we've lost of what we're about.

On another topic, a very special thanks to Walt (Odets) whose photorag
profiles have made all the difference to my digital B&W prints - from
my Tri X negs!  And to everyone else on the list who've contributed -
your time and experience is simply invaluable.

Regards
Gareth



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> Sigh……….
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of djon43
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 11:28 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital Vs. Film
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Walt Mucha"
> <wkm@k...> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Photojournalists, fashion photographers, wedding photographers and
> many other pros having been shooting digital for years.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> 
> > >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.
> >
> > The exposure index on most pro cameras ranges from ISO 100-1600.
> 
> Right, they are limited.
> 
> Canon has a full frame sensor so there is no wide angle problem
> 
> Wrong, there's a big problem...they don't have anything to equal
> typical film lenses of 20mm, for example.
> 
> > and their bulk is about the same as their pro film cameras.
> 
> Wrong of course...they're huge and bloated. But they'll be
> discontinued within a year or two for smaller models, more comparable
> to film SLRs.
> >
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > Physically smaller cameras are generally the rage of amatuers.
> 
> Yes, and photojournalists. While I agree that amateurs (note the
> spelling) aren't the whole market, they do tend to drive the market.
> 
> > Take a look at the Canon 5D. Same size as the 20D with full frame
> sensor. If you want retilinear lenses they are the same for film as
> digital and are found in mostly 14-16 mm and expensive.
> 
> Expensive is OK...it's a matter of whose wallet. Why would you assert
> that money was a problem?
> >
> > >Unfortunately the only digital camera that approaches certain
specific
> > >professional/amateur requirements, long met by film, seems the Epson,
> >
> > You can't possibly be serious!
> 
> Walt, fwiw I'm impressed by the work of people like Edward Weston and
> even Sebastio Salgado (who is way past mere 12mp gizmos already, but
> as you may know has recently done some of photography's best work on
> fillum).
> >
> > Regards, Walt
> 
> Walt, It's great that you enjoy your collection of digital cameras,
> but this is a B&W printing Group: it tends to be friendly to people
> who shoot film, even including Leicas and wooden view cameras...if you
> can imagine!
> 
> I look forward to committing to digital cameras myself, probably as
> early as 2007/8, when Fujiblad or Mamiya's got 22MP under control and
> the price drops. They're already relatively cheap, no more expensive
> than your gas station's smog testing equipment.
> 
> Regards, John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>