Digital BW, The Print

Choice.

All you have done is to voice your PREFERENCE here. IF one can find 
lenses to contain, on a per square inch of imaging area basis, the 
superior resolution, of digital capture then there is proper 
application and choice.

Scan backs and "chip wigglers" allow greater resolution than 8x10 
chromes. But I agree that for B&W landscape work (a VERY specific 
application) 8x10 film, with good or even mediocre optics will be a 
better CHOICE that trying to complicate matters with impractical 
devices in the field. Although I have visited with Stephen Johnson in 
Pacifica, CA and witnessed firsthand his 40x60 color AND B&W prints 
 from Betterlight scanbacks. They do NOT take a backseat to any prints I 
have ever seen from the film world.

I have 20 years of experience in all forms of high resolution digital 
output from NON-landscape fields. I'm on my 35th digital camera and 
sold my 8x10's a long time ago. View cameras are dying in the 
commercial world, so now's a good time to BUY one if you are 
Quasi-Religious about the experience. We come to a point that no one 
will make film for them because there are too few people to bother with 
it as new technolgies emerge to fill the void.

But, hey, there are still people making albumen prints from glass 
plates, so if that's your thing, I have no problem with it. It's a big 
world out there and if someone wants to abandon the technology 
treadmill and to live on a small island, growing one's own food and 
fishing for a meal, who am I to argue?

The truth is that 30x40 landscapes don't sell all that well (they never 
did for Ansel Adams either). So if someone wants to cling to the 
ultimate camera that get you to that.

BTW, when I shot 8x10 chromes/B&W, they didn't come in 36 exposure 
rolls and I never knew anyone that could afford to expose that many 
sheets of 8x10 per week, time-wise or money wise. So you can't make 
your argument against digital capture from both ends of the 
photographic application spectrum and hold any veracity.

The last holdouts to 8x10 were the car shooters and they went digital a 
long time ago. I have been to General Motors and they are busy 
converting ALL their ALD (Analog Legacy Data) to digital files as fast 
as possible through scanning.

I don't think they are interested in going back in the dark ages, pun 
intended.

I respect your choice, but know that you are in the vocal minority, 
which, economics do not support for the long term.

Claude Jodoin
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:46:24 -0000
   From: "rplojetz" <rplojetz@...>
Subject: Re: Digital Vs. Film

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.