Digital BW, The Print

Wow..thanks...I have been just using the stuff from target, kodak  
gold 200, and kodak MAX 400, both c41. Target charges 94 cents to  
develop a roll, and the rolls are about $1.75. I really only see the  
resolution difference on my computer screen, and maybe a little bit a  
8x10. I really like this minolta rangefinder. I also bought a couple  
film bodies for my minolta 7d lenses. I like the dynamic range of  
film in certain situations better than digital, and also the depth of  
field is a bit more narrow because of the larger "sensor" (film)  
size. ...thanks again, DM


On Jan 28, 2007, at 7:21 AM, djon43 wrote:

> Modern fast films (400, 800 ei) offer incredibly high resolution, but
> so did the fast films of yesteryear, such as TriX and Ilford HP3/4,
> when rated normally or pushed a stop or two, processed reasonably well
> in common developers. Personally, I love Fuji Neopan 400 and I rate it
> at 800 in Rodinal...extremely high resolution and/but the grain is
> sharply defined by my scanner.
>
> If you're seeing detail resolution differences between film speeds I
> think something other than exposure index is the problem. For example,
> something about the development of your faster film could be causing
> lots of grain or even reticulation, which could hurt resolution. On
> the other hand, people wanting speed have often been encouraged to use
> B&W developers that "dissolve grain" (with sodium sulfite,
> specifically) and these do reduce resolution...sodium sulfite does
> hurt resolution, but some people hate grain so much that they don't
> mind losing a little detail.
>
> If you're seeing resolution differences in small size prints, such as
> letter-size, something other than film choice is probably the culprit.
>
> The fact that you mentioned 200ei, a now-uncommon film speed that was
> recently popular in Walmart etc (good film..I shot a lot of it)
> suggests you're comparing a modern high resolution color negative film
> (or C41 B&W film) with something that's lower resolution, and not
> lower just because of speed. The C41-processed color and B&W films are
> exceptionally high resolution, though not necessarily as attractive as
> silver-based films, and well processed silver based films can easily
> "look" sharper because of sharply defined silver grain.
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, <lipshurt@...>  
> wrote:
> >
> > this is a very dumb question I am sure, but I have been digital for
> a long time and never seriously used film. When I was a kid we had a
> darkroom at the house but only printed 4x6. I do not remember the size
> of the grain at various ISO's. I just started getting into film with a
> nice rangefinder and am surprised that ISO 400 has less resolving
> power that ISO 200. Is that correct? I did not think there would that
> big of a diference. I am scanning at 3200 DPI which works great at ISO
> 200 but everyting is much softer at ISO 400. Is that normal? Thanks
> putting up with me...Doug M
> >
>
>
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]