Digital BW, The Print

Hi Jerry,

> Have you ever read this:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

Yes.

> From what I see -it (digital) tops it (film) already.

Well, for snapshots and web images, that is probably true...but for an
enlargement of any size, not even close.  Remember, what you are viewing is
at 72dpi, and on a computer monitor...and most anything looks good, even
shots from a Pentax P&S!

> Ineresting, out
> of that 100m that film (according to you) holds, how much of that info
> will translate into the print, after it's gone through the lens -
> through the enlarger (another lense), and then onto the paper -
> yet another factor that will affect the resolution ? And what lense is
> going to be able to resolve such a resolution?

These aren't problems, people have been doing it for years.

> And again, just who in
> the consumer market has the equipment/skill to extract all that info
> as well.

That is a valid point...that most people don't need that kind of quality, if
all they care about is web images and 4x6 point-n-shoot type images.  But,
that really has nothing to do with the issue, that is a use issue...the
comparison is 35mm to digital...not is digital good enough for someone's
particular use.

> I've seen
> prints from the D30 at 20x30 that would not have appeard as good if
> they were shot on 35mm.

That's actually not possible...without interpolation using something like
Genuine Fractals.  Why it looks "good" is because when interpolated, the
image still holds it's sharpness...but lacks in detail.  You can do this
with scanned film too.

Run the numbers.  The D30 gives you 2160 x 1440...and that is an
uninterpolated 1440/20 or 72 PPI to the printer...and there is NO way a
72PPI print will not show massive pixelation at any viewing distance except
from far away.  The images you saw were run through GF.

> yes, you CAN go that big with 35, but it Wont be as clean.

That depends on a lot of things, exposure, development, original image,
lense used etc.

> I read so many different explanations of film is better,
> digital is better...

This wasn't a discussion on which is "better", since, as you point out, for
a LOT of uses, digital can be "better".  It was a question of comparing
information content of 35mm film to digital sensor technology.

> again, not to offend, just my view.

Of course!

Regards,

Austin