Digital BW, The Print

Having everything from sub-35mm to 8x10 formats, it seems obvious that a medium format (even 645) will out perform 35mm.  That is, if all else is equal.  'Hassel' is a different story.  If you are backpacking most medium format is quite a bit heavier.  Although, Roy Harrington's 4x5 set up for backpacking is quite lite and compact.  Rangefinder 645's are probably the best way to go for backpacking.  Film is strictly a subjective choice.
   
  As with everthing else, there a pros and cons for each format you would consider.  Set your priorities and do an objective valuation.
   
  The higher end digitals are producing some seriously good b&w.  But, if the ultimate quiality is your quest, a 4x5 film is still king of hill.  (Unless of course you can go bigger.)  Particularly with b&w size really does matter..
   
  Tom Baker

TFielder <tfielder@...> wrote:
          I'm heading out to Utah this weekend and to the Sierra's next month. 
I understand that film scans may likely result in better data files
for printing. I have a Canon 20D; Nikon 35 mm film and a medium
format film camera. My question is, should I shoot the 35 mm and get
high resolution scans or shoot with the median format? After
scanning, will the medium format platform out-perform the data I can
get from the 35 mm sufficient to offset the additional effort? My
second question pertains to choice of film. Should I shoot with
Velvia, Tri-X or maybe just color film and convert to B & W in
Photoshop? Finally, does anyone have a recommendation for a reliable
film-scanning service?

Thanks to all. I appreciate your thoughts.

Tom



                           


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