Digital BW, The Print

I'm not going to get into an arguement about it because 35mm doesn't
interest me in the least when it come to film in the first place.... 

But, what I was refering to was not how much FILM stock could record,
that is beside the point. If you are a digital printer, you are going
to have to SCAN that great film and that is when you get into trouble.
A ccd film scanner isn't going to do the job any better than a 5D
camera using CS2 for dynamic range and noise control. That was the
only point I was trying to make. 

If I was going to try to capture the most of film it would be drum
scanned of course. Now that is better. A ccd scanner is nothing but a
mid level digital camera, and usually not a very efficient one at
that. His decision was between a digital 35mm slr and a ccd film scanner.

John




 
> Perhaps over chromes. Not over negatives. One can easily capture the 
> entire subject brightness range from featureless shadows to highlight 
> detail on a white flower in bright mid-day summer sun with either color 
> or B&W negative film. Here's an example:
> 
> http://www.achromaticarts.com/big_image.php?path=flowers&img_num=2
> 
> With the breeze blowing, there's no method I know of that will let you 
> capture this image with any digital imaging device commercially
available.
> 
> Which proves what exactly? Nothing other than you can do some things 
> with film that you can't do with digital. There are undoubtedly many 
> things you can do with digital that you can't do with film. The two 
> technologies are intersecting sets - neither is wholly contained within 
> the other.
> 
> So back to the OPs problem - one should use the technology with which 
> one is most comfortable. If that's film, so be it. If that's
digital, so 
> be it.
> --
> Bruce Watson
>