Digital BW, The Print

IMHO a digital SLR and a few lenses buys a lot of artistic freedom.  My own
experience, which certainly will not be to everyone's liking:  When I
started the hobby, I used 4x5 and 8x10 field cameras, a spotmeter, film
speeds calibrated with the zone system and, of course, tripods.  Cool stuff.
Then I discovered 35mm cameras (MF never made that much sense to me).
Portability and no tripod, especially with rangefinder gear, but still
drudgery in film developing.  Then came digital cameras.  No tripod, shoot
all you want with a microdrive, you'll probably get what you want, and "film
speeds" selected as you go.  Result, more time spent in photographing, more
latitude in photographing, more time to edit and no time spent developing
film or scanning (which can be considerable).  Of course, I still pack a
good tripod, but it is smaller and usually used just in really low-light
static situations.  In keeping with this forum, Convert to B&W Pro gives me
an excellent b&w image from the digital file.  I wouldn't worry about the
"megapixel" comparison.  My 35mm RGB scans are about 100mb, compared to
around 40mb for a digital file, but a lot of that is just noise.   Just my
take.

Ken 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Art
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:44 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Scanning 35mm vs digital camera
> 
> I am getting ready to purchase a Minolta Konica scanner over 
> purchasing a new digital camera because everything I have 
> read about scanning a 35mm black and white negative has 
> indicated that scanning has the megapixal equivalent of 
> around 20mgpixals or above campared to the cameras that are 
> out there now.
> 
> does anyone have any comments?
> 
> 
> Art