Digital BW, The Print

I can only speak from my experience (very likely a lot less than yours and
yes a very subjective subject I suppose) - moving from scanned 35mm film
(Imacon 848 scanner) to the 1DsII.  There is no way I'd ever go back.  The
one concession I will still grant 35mm B&W film is the higher dynamic range.
In all other respects I'd much rather start with the cleaner file from the
1DsII.  

And the P45...ooh ahhh, saving my pennies.  Having worked with this in the
studio, I'm dying to have one of my own.  I'd love to see more competition
in MF digital to bring those prices down!

At any rate, each has its merits and disadvantages.  If I did have a
preference for film I'd sure be stockpiling it though...


> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 16:53:52 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] analog/digital Megapixels
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@...> wrote:
>> 
>> The chart referenced below omits the point that digitally captured files can
>> typically be enlarged with better quality than scanned film.
> 
> Steve,
> Working every day with captures, drum scans, Imacon scans, flatbed, few
> megapixels or 
> plenty, and making every concievable size print here- nothing in all that
> experience would 
> support that statement.
> I suppose having fuzzy word like "quality" involved might leave an out. Or one
> might say an 
> excellent high res capture will enlarge better than a very crappy little film
> scan, but would 
> that be "typical"?
> I keep seeing statements like this and wonder why, I just don't get it.
> Besides, some of this is
> subjective.
> 
> Tyler