Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> Just a couple of points below - I have by no means a religious view
on this
> topic

we seem to have just completely different experiences in this area, so
you will never see what I do or visa versa. Your questions alone
indicate this-

> What is it that you don't find sharp in a non USM sharpened digitally
> captured image?

As I said, it depends. On enlargement, on system, etc..

>  ...Scanned film also requires "capture sharpening"

Why would you think that? No it doesn't. Or I should say- it depends.
I don't sharpen drum scans from B&W negs any more. Rarely is it
"required". A ccd flatbed? different story... depending...
I make 30x40 prints for someone making ccd Imacon scans from hassy
negs, he does not sharpen nor needs to. 
Again, this implies completely different backgrounds.

...
> Is anyone actually arguing that there is today a digital capture
solution
> equivalent in resolution to 5x7?

Did anyone qualify their blanket statements? Digital capture was
implied to be better than scanned film, not "some" scanned film.

>  I don't think so.  There are, however,
> digital capture system that thrash 35mm colour film (eg the 1DsII and
> potentially even the 5D and 1DII).

So what? I'd argue that few but sports, street, or documentarions or
the like should be shooting 35mm color film anyway. I don't know
anyone that does except for snapshots, maybe low end retail fashion
guys, but they are rightly all digital now.

>  22mp 35mm solutions are likely to appear
> within a year or so.

We're way OT and getting nowhere. I think you should continue to be
enthusiastic about your tools and methods no matter what someone half
way across the planet says, and we should all be careful of our advice.
Tyler