Digital BW, The Print

I am not saying that film is superior to digital or vis a versa, all 
I am saying is that application is important in choosing the tool. It 
could be that digital is what you need or it could be that film is 
better. On the pure art side of it there is great work being done 
with pinhole cameras these days. But it works as the right tool for 
the final print as they see it and the effect can't be replicated 
with a lens. It's a black and white forum, so my argument extends 
specifically towards that and I am not trying to argue specifically 
that 8x10 cameras are the way to go.

On the topic of economics as an argument against film though, you say 
you are on your 35th camera in 20 years, ouch but that sounds damn 
expensive, 7 months per camera?

As for the digital memory argument I wasn't referring to 8x10 negs, I 
was referring to 35mm in comparison. Sorry about the confusion,i 
assumed that when i said 36 exposures it would be obvious that i was 
talking about 35mm.






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, claudej1@a... 
wrote:
>
> 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@y...>
> 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.
>