Digital BW, The Print

Mike,

I'm still not clear what you mean below...I don't think you meant the word
"vice"...

I shoot digitally (digital capture) with some pretty high end equipment, and
for any image of any substantial size (over ~8x10), it pales in comparison
to the same image done with film then scanned.

The part of your post that I responded to spoke about printing, NOT
shooting...from what I could tell.  There are TWO types of digital, scanned
film, as well as digital capture.  People often confuse the two in
discussions, as they don't clarify which they are talking about.

Yes, for certain situations, like catalog work, and magazine work, digital
capture is just fine...and there is no doubt about it, but the demise of
film is greatly exaggerated.

I get some great images via digital capture...but the amount of data isn't
there for any large images, and typically, unless it's a scanning
back/camera, the color is interpolated.  Yes, it looks nice, but it isn't
all real.  You can interpolate until your heart's content to get larger
output too...but that too isn't real image data...and there IS a noticeable
difference.

From what I have observed, people are enthralled with the
sharpness/cleanness of digital, and don't notice that the detail isn't there
compared to film...and since most people don't compare the exact same image
side by side, they just don't notice it.

Austin

> Austin,
>
> No need to be skeptical. I meant shooting digitally vice printing or
> scanning digitally.
>
> Mike
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > What EXACTLY do you mean by "shooting digital"?  Do you
> > specifically mean PRINTING or SHOOTING?  I am VERY skeptical if you
> > really mean shooting.
> > Austin