Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 11/21/2004 10:14:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

With  regard to the lens discussion, isn't it nice to be thinking that we are
now  pushing the limits of current lens resolution - lens that up until now
were  considered fantastic.

Steve



They are even more fanstastic now that the recording surfaces does them  
justice. For all practical purposes, the 1Ds Mark II renders 645 color film  
obsolete. Unless you use Tmax 100 or Tech Pan with prime (non-retrofocus lenses)  
at optimum aperture, it give B&W a run for it's money as well.
 
Claude


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

Claude 

In the message below you seem to be referring to more than simple
resolution.  Do you also mean the recordable density range?  I would like a
hear a bit more on this.  I have been spending a lot of time lately
understanding graduated filters better (just ordered a set - yes I know I
should already have been using them).  I would now like to understand how
film f-stop ranges equate to a) the range of f-stops that can be recorded on
digital sensor such as the 1Ds MK II and b) the density range that we talk
about for our prints (Dmax less dMin).  As I understand it one of the big
benefits of B&W film vs converted colour film is the greater tonal range
that can be recorded by B&W film.  How does this range compare with the new
digital cameras?  How much of this range is printable?

Steve

> From: <claudej1@...>

> They are even more fanstastic now that the recording surfaces does them
> justice. For all practical purposes, the 1Ds Mark II renders 645 color film
> obsolete. Unless you use Tmax 100 or Tech Pan with prime (non-retrofocus
> lenses)  
> at optimum aperture, it give B&W a run for it's money as well.
>  
> Claude