Digital BW, The Print

wow peter.  thanks for the post.  your story is very relatable to 
me.  i just got back from a trip to sequoia national park where I 
took my pentax 67 and 10 rolls of film.  while i'm sure i've gotten 
some great shots I don't know becuase i haven't have the chance to 
develop them.  a problem i keep running into.  also i found myself 
refraining from taking too many shots as the set up of the tripod, 
the changing film every 10 shots, metering, and exposing take time.  
Not to mention the wait of that bowling ball of a camera.  thanks 
again.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt 
<pdesmidt@...> wrote:
>
> I've been an avid amateur photographer for 16 years, and I have a 
> darkroom full of professional grade equipment, including 4x5 and 
8x10 
> color enlargers.  For the last 10 years, my main camera was a 4x5 
view 
> camera. I enlarged these negatives using high quality lenses on an 
> aligned enlarger using a glass carrier to 8x10 and 11x14.  In 
addition, 
> I have a print collection of over 100 prints, which includes some 
by 
> very fine photographers: Les McLean, Wynn Bullock, Ralph 
Lambrecht.... 
> So I do think that I have some idea of what a quality traditional 
silver 
> print looks like.  A few years ago, I bought to Fuji medium format 
> rangefinders to use on a trip.  Using Ilford XP2 Super, I got 
> outstanding results, and I had a lot of fun.
> 
>  About this time I bought a 2 mp Canon digital point and shoot, 
mainly 
> to take picture for Ebay.  While not a fan of the shutter lag, I 
could 
> make better 4x6" prints using this camera than I could with my 
trusty 
> Nikon FM2 with Nikon prime lenses.  Despite this success, I was 
> convinced that a D70 or digital Rebel would not give me the 
quality that 
> I wanted.  This was unfortunate in that a job change had given me 
> significantly less time in the darkroom.  I'm a slow printer, and 
I 
> using bleaching and toning on fiber-based silver gelatin paper, 
which is 
> time consuming to process. And I simply didn't have the time (and 
still 
> don't) to spend a whole day in the darkroom making a group prints 
from 
> one negative. This sucks, as I enjoy the darkroom process 
immensely.
> 
>  As a result, when the D200 came out, I bought one.  I figured 
that if 
> it really didn't work out, I could sell it for not that big of a 
loss.  
> Well, since I bought it, I haven't used anything else.  Reading 
various 
> websites, and with some experience scanning negatives, my 
calculations 
> indicated that I'd only be able to get decent 8x10s. These 
calculations 
> were wrong.  Way wrong.  With careful use, I can get 12x18 inch 
prints 
> that are better than anything I could get with medium format and 
smaller 
> film cameras.  To be honest, the best 12x18 prints from the Dslr 
don't 
> give up anything to the 11x14 inch optical prints from 4x5. (TMX 
> developed in Xtol 1+2). Even better, my photography has gotten 
much 
> better, as I carry my D200 with most of the time, and taking shots 
with 
> it takes significantly less time than using my Sinar P. It's true 
that 
> at some point, enlargement (optical or digital) from 4x5 film 
should out 
> pace the quality from my 10 mp dslr, but with my 13x19" printer, I 
don't 
> see it. I do miss the focal plane and perspective control of the 
view 
> camera, but that's about it.  There are lots of hurdles with 
digital 
> photography, from blown highlights to clogged nozzles, but there 
are 
> hurdles no matter what you do.  When I could only print with Mis 
inks in 
> a C86 or R220, I wouldn't have been happy. I had tons of clogged 
> nozzles, and the prints were just OK. With my R2400 and Epson 
premium 
> semi-matte, premium semi-gloss and silver rag papers, I'm much 
happier. 
> Good luck and have fun! (I'll be happy to send you a raw file from 
my d200.)
>