Digital BW, The Print

Don't forget that subject matter is *very* important as to whether a digital
capture is better than film.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

qdfb wrote:

>  I am never quite sure whether any subjective element enters the
> equation when comparing film resolution with pixels.
>
> For example, the Phase One H20 back uses the Kodak 16mp chip.  16mp
> is less even than Kodak's claims for 35mm resolution, but Phase One
> maintain their back offers quality better than medium format film.
> Examples I have seen from Phase Ones own demo CD are of exceptional
> quality.
>
> It is a slightly diferent point, as maybe 35mm film does, on paper,
> hold more data than, say, the Phase One back, but in practice, the
> Phase One looks a whole lot better.  There could be a number of
> reasons for this: useful data could be lost in film grain, lack of
> film flatness and scanner limitations. But is seems that,
> subjectively at least, substantially fewer pixels are need from
> direct digital capture than from digitised, scanned film.
> --
> Quentin
>





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