Digital BW, The Print

Claude writes:

> Rather than just theorize with math, how about
> you invest in a digital camera and see for yourself
> how, in terms of final image quality, it's the opposite
> of what you say.

Because math removes the element of subjectivity that clouds the judgement
of many photographers.

The math says that Leica lenses do not produce a "glow," but try to convince
rabid Leicaphiles of this.  Like you, they prefer an emotional judgement to
one based on facts and figures, and will believe in their "glow" no matter
what the hard data say.

However, assuming one wants the best image quality for the best price, it's
preferable to look at the numbers, and not yield to equipment or gadget
lust.

> I just printed a 13x19 Piezo print from a Sigma
> XD-9 sensor in a $1,500 Sigma camera from a $250
> macro lens that IN THE PRINT shows more micro
> detail than I could ever get from a 4x5 TriX
> optical print.

I suppose it has not occurred to you that the optical enlargement process is
an _enormous_ variable in this process.

> Never liked the idea of scanning (slow, dusty, second
> or third generation data).

When the scan is clean, you get more data from the scan than from digital.
Film has a lot more data, and a good scan extracts most of it, leaving you
with more data than digital, even after allowing for dust and what-not.

After the scan, the image is digital, just like the image you get from your
electronic camera.