Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sinar001" <jnolly@...> wrote:

I hope this is not getting off topic, but just a few thoughts, with respect to John of 
course...

> As been mentioned numerous times, digital dslr images obviously meet
> or even exceed the best possible results from 35mm scanned images.
> Maybe in B&W the results are not as compelling as with 35mm color 
> where grain is considered a negative. With B&W, there is the
> interesting aspect that grain plays, because for some, grain is an
> intrinsic value/component of 35mm photography. Losing that with
> digital "creaminess", it's obvious why some photographers prefer the
> film image.

We are now seeing a lot of over-enlarged imagery. The above depends on that degree 
IMHO. There comes a point at which the eye needs SOMETHING in focus. Sharp grain is far 
more pleasing to me at any size than mush with nothing sharp anywhere.

...
> ...It is my
> contention that large format film results can be attained with these
> smaller digital cameras using stitching techniques. This can be done
> orienting the camera vertically & using a panorama jig, or using a
> "technical" camera with a sliding back for multiple exposures using
> the same nodal point of a larger coverage area lense.

I've had multu-exposure techniques also presented to me as a way to capture scene 
lighting ratio as well. I have to tell you, all of this seems silly. The percentage of images 
that could be made with multuple exposures on a tripod over a period of time must 
represent a very small fraction of imagery myself and other shooters I know have made, or 
want to make.

I'll say it again, why do I need this? I can make extraordinary images with film under a wide 
variety of lighting, in one exposure, with amazing detail, for far far cheaper than any 
capable digital capture system. Again, the cost is absurd, I mean really.

I regularly drum scam 35mm film and make 30x40 digital prints that look great. They 
have grain, sharp grain. When I make a print that size from an affordable (under $10,000!) 
capture system it's mush. Arguably, a good scanner is necessary.

Tyler