Digital BW, The Print

Mike,

> I saw first hand 24"x30" color images taken by Vincent Versace with a
> Nikon D1x and then printed on an Epson 10000 on Epson (Crane) Rough
> Fine Art paper. The prints were outstanding, color sharpness, detail,
> etc.

Digital prints ARE sharp, as they should be, but how can you tell it had
"detail" (reflecting the actual scene imaged) without having seen the
original scene, or having compared it to a film image of the same scene?

> Last night we compared the exact same image shot on a D30 and Fuji
> Provia then scanned and printed on the same Epson 2000P. No lack of
> detail was evident.

Can you please post the images...in their entirety?  Also, please list what
scanner was used, and what lense(s) these were shot with.  I can give you
the address of my FTP server to post them to if you don't have the disk
space.

> Perhaps you can prove scientifically that film is better,

Scientifically doesn't matter to me, what matters is comparing actual
images, and if the chosen "technique" provides the required results.  I've
been comparing digital images with film images for two decades...from low to
high end digital capture sources.  That's why I can say with reasonable
authority that real detail is not there in these small sensor cameras.  Yes,
for smaller prints, you can't see a difference, because that level of detail
isn't resolved...and that's where digital does work very well.

> Sure T-Max 100
> can capture 22 stops of light, but the papers we print on are limited
> to much less.

Not if you print digitally, there is no limit to the number of stops you can
print.  BTW, who says they can get 22 stops out of T-Max 100?  I really
don't believe that's possible, since I believe that would be a dMax of 6.6
(log 2**22).

Austin