Digital BW, The Print

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>

> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] analog/digital Megapixels
> 
> --- 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-

Agreed.

> 
>> 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.
> 
As you note, my experience is that even scans of 645 film with an Imacon 848
require capture sharpening (pre-enlargement or whatever).

> ...
>> 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.

Agree that such comments need to be qualified to the intended individual
comparison and to the fact that they are opinion only.

> 
>>  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.

Interesting.  I know of no high-end fashion photographer who is sill
shooting film consistently except when a P45 can not yield the desired
"print" size - which about confines it to extreme billboard work.  Everyone
I have worked with in London has moved to digital.  But again, each and
every one of us can cite different examples of experience.


> 
>>  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.

Agreed.  Unqualified blanket statements serve no one and each person needs
to find the materials they believe meet the requirements of their profession
or hobby. (I would not include "art" as another category - one either
creates "art" as a profession or as a hobby.  A relative lucky few can make
their hobby their career.)  It would be interesting though to poll
photographers as regards their equipment and uses - and whether they are
professionals or enthusiasts only.  It would be my expectation that the
penetration of digital capture amongst professional photographers now
dominates, that it (unsurprisingly) dominates the point and shoot casual
observer, and that its penetration of hobbyists (especially the B&W
enthusiast) is much more mixed - but rising.  Only a statistically
significant set of poll results would confirm either way.  If it weren't
better (for whatever reasons, and I note this discussion was only focussed
on resolution, grain and the ability to institute gain) then its adoption
would likely have failed in most or all segments.

Given the trends in film production and particularly B&W film production,
film enthusiasts would do well to bandy together and identify a means of
protecting their access to this raw production material they hold so dear.
Would a niche company like MIS be interested in, for example, in acquiring
or arranging for film production facilities and acquiring the rights to
start producing specialist films such as the beloved Tech Pan again? (I can
imagine an impassioned plea to Kodak securing such rights for very little
cost.) Presumably if it's so good there is a ready market willing to pay for
such a niche product - even if it has to be priced at a multiple (4x, 5x?)
of what it once traded at? An entrepreneurial person, passionate about B&W
film, would do well to investigate such an opportunity if they want to see
the format survive.

Rather than arguing as to which production material/equipment is better,
those passionate about a product that is clearly being phased out would do
well to think about how they might keep it alive and whether that's possible
at a sensible price point.  This effort would indeed be "on-topic".