Digital BW, The Print

Hi Herb,

> Austin -- Digital is not just better for "snapshots and web images".
>
> At least, Michael Reichmann, whose opinion I value highly

Out of curiosity, why?

> and who is
> the author of the Luminous Landscape article you say you read,
> disagrees pretty vehemently with you.

He can disagree all he wants...but it doesn't change the actual facts.  I
also believe many people read too much into what he has written...and what
he has written is only his opinion, not a statement of facts.

> You can read the quotes I've
> included below and see that he thinks the digital D30 is preferable
> to Provia 100F film even up to 10" x 15".

> Moreoever, he believes
> that the digital pictures have a higher "apparent resolution":

What he is talking about is that digital images typically have better edge
sharpness.  This is true, unless you take a film image and also apply USM to
it.  It's really comparing apples and oranges.  There is a large difference
between edge sharpness and detail.  You can have fantastic edge sharpness,
but no detail.

> "All this is lead-up to my current opinion; unvarnished and without
> reservation. Prints that I can make from D30 images are better than
> the prints that I can make from 35mm film. Period."

I've done exactly that, and it's just not true for what my opinion of
"better" is.  "better" is entirely subjective.  One of the "problems" is,
just as with people who debate sound quality...is it depends on if you know
what you are looking at or not, and what you are looking for.  As I have
pointed out many times to people who look at a digital image and claim they
are "better", is digital images that are "rezzed up" to match the size
capabilities of film don't have the detail that film does.  It's not magic,
if the data isn't in the captured image (which it simply can't be, the
sensor only captures just so much), it just isn't there...no matter how many
times you run interpolation on the image.  Interpolated data is just that,
made up data.

Some may say that an artist's drawing is far better than a
photograph...simply because it has cleaner lines, and smoother (or more
consistent) tones...it's the same thing...it lacks the detail of the film
image...though it is very pleasing to the eye.

Don't get me wrong, the images from the D30 are really pretty good, and are
very usable for a lot of uses...but they aren't really as good as Michael
believes they are, at least if one understands just what one is looking at.
They may look more "pleasing" to someone's eye, again, doesn't mean they are
more accurate, or "better".  That is certainly subjective.  Some people like
Cibas that have the colors enhanced...though the color isn't reality, they
like it.  It all depends on what you are trying to do.

It's an interesting question...since some people like "special effects" in
the movies, but you know they aren't real...are you trying to accurately
capture reality, or make something more pleasing to the eye?

Austin