Digital BW, The Print

I  think the argument of film vs. digital to be impossible because it 
is entirely variable on the photographers usage, output choices and 
subject matter. 

wedding photographers, etc, like the digital because it reduces costs 
and shoot to print times, that's just good business sense, minimize 
costs, maximize profit.

You will have a hard time convincing me that even the newest most 
technologically advanced digital camera can produce a landscape 
equally to an 8x10 contact print from a 50 year old field view 
camera, let alone withstand an enlargement to 30x40 with comparable 
quality. But if you don't produce 30x40 landscapes then the argument 
is mute.

For me the biggest problem with digital is one that will never be 
solved, I don't think that the storage medium is permanent enough, I 
can drag out 30 year old negatives and print them, and if I don't I 
know they will be there  in another 30 years. You can reinterpret 
negs at a later date sometimes better because your skill has 
improved, the technology has improved or simply you see the print in 
a new way, I don't want to lose that to something as finicky as 
changes in data storage parameters Or those easily damaged recordable 
disks or if the foil of the disk decays or something, regardless of 
what the manufacture says, its permanence is unproven. Still with 
digital you must maintain a permanent storage of these, whether on 
disk or hard drive. And with the permanence concerns of digitally 
printed images being so questionable this should be a serious concern 
to anyone who wants to reprint in 30 years.

22 mega pixels x 36 negs x 2rolls per week x 52 weeks x 30 years = 
2.5 terabytes or 3500 disks or 11x 220gig slave drives.

I know this is a forum on digital b&w, but still I prefer the 
permanence and reliability of film. I scan my negs and ps after, but 
all that is repeatable provided I still have the neg. even if I screw 
up the digital work it is still there, I like knowing that. 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "garethjolly" 
<garethjolly@b...> wrote:
>
> 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@...m, "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]
> >
>