Digital BW, The Print

Jerry and Austin,

I\ufffdm amazed how long you can discuss about that question.

The maths are not so complicated: Native resolution of the D60 is about a
6,5"x10" image in 300dpi - thats where it has - so to say - "full"
resolution. To enlarge it to a 11x16", you have to enlarge about 2,5x. As
digital photos have no grain and few noise in good cameras, you will
actually need less, lets say not 15MPix but maybe 9 or 12 to get a high
quality 11x16 print that has all the detail that a clinically clean and
perfect Provia shot can *theoretically* have when scanned at 4000dpi with a
decent scanner.

But then we shouldn\ufffdt forget that analogue photographers always compare
digital with tack sharp Provia 100ASA slides (scanned with Imacon/
Heidelberg or other pro machines), but that is not what photographers shoot
most. Often they use the grainier b&w film, or 400ASA which is more grainy
or cheaper slide film (remember: Provia is rather expensive).

But finally its evident: The 6MPix camera *cannot*, mathematically have
finest detail at 11x16 prints, the pixel information is just not there.
Nevertheless they look very "clean" which is partly absence of grain and
partly absence of detail. Some people love this cleanness, others find it
sterile. I personally think that specially human skin (more generally:
texture) often looks like plastic on digital images - not really what I
wanted...

Nevertheless I love digital for the nice things  it has over analogue -
instant control, no film proessing, fast etc...  I think apart from our
feelings of pride, need to justify the high cost of digital cams all digital
photographers know "somewhere inside" that it\ufffds  getting closer, but we\ufffdre
not yet there. For me its completely ok to love my Canon G1 for the fun it
gives me - I shoot more often G1 than with my Konica Hexar or my Contax 35mm
stuff. And in 1 or 2 years there will be better cams with finer resolution
etc etc...

BTW Ausin wasn\ufffdt it you who brought up the comparision with CD vs. vinyl
sound? I liked that because while I listen a lot to CDs and even mp3s I
still have an excellent turn table and its true: digital sounds cleaner but
has less detail and is more static.

Just lets go on doing the photos we love to do - digital, analogue etc.

greetings from berlin

Bernhard

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Bernie Ess" 
<the.sophist@g...> wrote:


> Jerry and Austin,
> 
> I´m amazed how long you can discuss about that question.
 

Bernie (and Roger) -- I think they're actually having fun. ;)

Ya, It's getting a little boring now, so I think I'll call an end to it.

Jerry

>> I´m amazed how long you can discuss about that question.
> 
> 
> Bernie (and Roger) -- I think they're actually having fun. ;)
>

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Bernie Ess"
><the.sophist@g...> wrote:
>
>
>>  Jerry and Austin,
>>
>>  I´m amazed how long you can discuss about that question.
>
>
>Bernie (and Roger) -- I think they're actually having fun. ;)

I hope they are too, because some of us are now getting dizzy with 
their going on and on in circle.

Austin has the exceptional and wonderful ability to actually like his 
own photographs in their native unaldulterated state! Bless god 
Austin, you are the one in a million that can do that... I wish I 
could make peace with my own pictures, Photoshop tweaked or not.

While I largely share Jerry's views regarding the needs of using 
Photoshop to bring virtually all photographs to the current "fine art 
level" potential, I still wish he would realize that works of art are 
what I call "bilateral relativistic works": they flow from the artist 
context to the viewer's context conveying facts,  emotions, 
sensations, etc. The more intensely these values are conveyed to more 
people, the better the artistic statement. In this endeavour, some 
artists succeed in raising their work to the highest level with 
minimal physical intervention, others labour intensely on their work. 
It seems this distinction is entirely irrelevant: it is only the 
beauty, relevance, sensitivity, etc., of the artistic statement that 
counts, not the sum of efforts that went into its creation.


-- 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Jean-Michel Paris 
<jmparis@...>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

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

What a pity. I was hoping you two might do a live webcast. <g>

> 
> Ya, It's getting a little boring now, so I think I'll call an 
> end to it.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> >> I´m amazed how long you can discuss about that question.
> > 
> > 
> > Bernie (and Roger) -- I think they're actually having fun. ;)
> >
>