Digital BW, The Print

I agree with Austin; I don't yet have a digital camera because they don't
give the detail that I can get from Provia 100F scanned with a LS4000
scanner. My files are about 120 MB with 24 Mpixels, and I can print whole
frames at 360 ppi at 10x15" without any interpolation at all.

My friend has a Fuji S1 Pro and I am quite impressed with what the camera's
electronics can do with just 3 Mpixels or less of information. He can make
some quite nice 8x10 prints, but the deficiencies become more apparent at
10x15.

I don't think many will deny that top digital cameras can produce 'nice'
pictures. I think we are arguing as to what is 'nice'. A painter can produce
a 'nice' picture that is ALL invented. A digital camera can produce a 'nice'
picture that is LARGELY invention (on a small framework of real pixel
information). But a fine-grain film scanned at highres will produce a more
accurate picture WITHOUT ANY electronic invention. However, although more
accurate in its recording of the scene, it might not be as 'nice', because
it will show everything (down to the limits of grain size) - warts and all!
I happen to like seeing the 'warts', and if I find them too obtrusive, I can
resort to electronic means in PS to remove them. Digicam users don't have
that choice, the 'warts' just aren't there!

Just my thoughts for the day,

Bob Frost.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Kravit" <michael.kravit@...>
>
> I found a pretty basic but fairly well written article comparing film to
ccd. It seem that the author is saying that although
> one would need to have 100M pixels to achieve the resolving power of
Kodachrome, there are many other factors that
> play into a digital cameras ability to produce images that are comprable
to film.