Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 6/17/2003 4:24:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> Been reading this thread with interest.... 
> Lot's of interesting perspectives from both sides.  One thing for sure is 
> that digital 
> isn't going away. Its fascinating that those that have absolute comfort 
> scanning 
> digitally and printing digitally are averse to digital capture.  I shoot 
> digital because I 
> don't like chemicals in my studio or house. For the things I shoot my 'old' 
> canon 1D 
> allows prints up to 20x30 and i get excellent conversions to black and white 
> with 
> software (imaging factory) where I have great control of what film emulation 
> or use of 
> filters.   Clearly digial capture has become good enough that the issue has 
> become a 
> matter of opinion not a matter of fact.  Use what you like!
> 
> Eric HIss
> 
> 

Great post and I agree with your assertions. I have lost my chemical 
dependency since 1999 (partially since 1996). I am proud to say I have not shot any of 
that stuff (the four letter word that starts with "F"---LOL) in the new 
millenium. My business has sold, on average 150,000 prints per year, smaller than 
8x10 and about 2,000 8x10 and larger.......all pure pixel captures.

A camera is nothing more than a recording device. It's all about the image 
for the market you are serving. Use what is best for your market.

Claude


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

Hi Claude,
I agree with you - to a point.
With film the critical factor of "capturing" is the quality of the 
lens.
With digital it is a professional type camera, but it is also the 
Megabytes.
I am going back to film for I can afford a Nikon body and a good 1.4 
50mm lens for $AUS1100, whereas a Professioinal Camera - Canon, 
Nikon, or Kodak, start at $AUS9000.  
The new Canon G5 is $AUS1400 and already it has its 5mb usurped by a 
new amateur camera of 6 mb
This is not forgetting that my expensive lens can also be used on 
future Nikon bodies.
So, for many of us the bottom line is cost (and a non-convinced wife 
in the background).
Ken
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, claudej1@a... 
wrote:
> A camera is nothing more than a recording device.  
> Claude

> I am going back to film for I can afford a Nikon body and a
good 1.4
> 50mm lens for $AUS1100, whereas a Professioinal Camera - Canon,
> Nikon, or Kodak, start at $AUS9000.
> The new Canon G5 is $AUS1400 and already it has its 5mb usurped
by a
> new amateur camera of 6 mb
> This is not forgetting that my expensive lens can also be used
on
> future Nikon bodies.
> So, for many of us the bottom line is cost (and a non-convinced
wife
> in the background).

Ken,

I'm not a pro or even a serious amateur in photography but
thinking along the same lines as you have done I decided to
postpone digital photography till 6-8 Mpix becomes available for
an acceptable price and rather in a G8 package than a SLR. To
bridge the period I did buy secondhand 6x6, 6x9 folders and am
busy to convert an old Polaroid 110A to a 6x14 panorama camera.
My philosophy is that there's nothing better for scanning than a
lot of square inches of film. I wouldn't recommend buying folders
like I do but secondhand Hasselblads or Mamiya 645's are getting
cheaper day by day. I have not seen comparisons ? between 35 mm
shots scanned on a 4000 ppi filmscanner and 6x6 shots scanned on
an Epson 3200 but with equal quality cameras I bet the 6x6 wins
in that case. The value of the old equipment after you change to
digital has to be considered too. My folders were cheap and can
be sold for the same price, the Hasselblads too, I'm not
convinced that the Nikons keep their price. It is collectors
value that counts after the revolution.

It all depends on what you have to shoot of course.

Ernst