Digital BW, The Print

Anthony,

With all due respect but you don't know what you're talking about -  
seems you're throwing out statements solely to see what ruckus you can  
create.

At a recent show at NOMA (New Orleans museum of Art) I had people in  
front of my prints all the time, asking of they were shot on film or  
digital - no one - and I mean no one could tell which print was shot  
with what - and these were  photographers, art people, curators and  
"regular" folks.

The prints were all  13 x 19 printed on an Epson 2200, 7600 and a 9600  
on archival paper - some of them shot with Hasselblad, some with a 3.1  
MB Canon (D30) and some with a 10D and some with a 1Ds. The general  
comment was "wow - these look like they are ALL shot on film".

So much for the "digital is inferior and always have that Digital look"!

Bull!

If you know your work, shoot it right, develop the images properly it  
doesn't mean S&*t if they are shot on film or digital - the only thing  
that matters is what comes out at the end! I don't CARE if the image I  
look at was produced with digital or film - the ONLY thing I care about  
is how I FEEL WHEN I LOOK AT THE IMAGE!

However - as you seem to be such an expert, lets put you to the test -  
please tell me if this particular image was shot on film or digital:

http://www.christerart.com/newchristerwork/Images/intimateportraits/ 
leigh/large/payson/Lei_4195ab2web.jpg

and then this one:

http://www.christerart.com/Fotose/more4/large/Joy_2358web2.jpg

Now - what were they shot with?

Christer


			Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell

			  http://www.ChristerArt.com
		  	   3.5 million visitors to date..


On Mar 17, 2005, at 1:51 PM,  
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Contax is not so toast !
>
> Bob Frost writes:
>
>> Resolution of what? From the data I have seen, sensor resolution in  
>> cameras
>> such as the D2X and IDsII are equal or superior to 35mm Velvia in
>> resolution.
>
> I believe what I see, rather than what I read, and digital doesn't even
> come close.  Shooting B&W digitally is doubly bizarre, since not only  
> do
> you sacrifice resolution, but you sacrifce tonality as well.
>
>> We don't yet have sensors comparable to the larger sizes of
>> film, but that is just a matter of size, not resolution, surely.
>
> Sufficiently large sensors would have lots of pixels, yes, but nobody
> knows how to make those.  And you cannot just make pixels smaller,
> because the noise goes up and the quality of each pixel declines
> rapidly.  In the final analysis, for both film and digital, the size of
> the imaging plane makes all the difference.

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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Christer 
Rosewelll <christerart@m...> wrote:
> 
> and then this one:
> 
> http://www.christerart.com/Fotose/more4/large/Joy_2358web2.jpg
> 
> Now - what were they shot with?
> 
> Christer
> 
Hey Christer-is that Your hand?
Jack

Christer Rosewelll writes:

> At a recent show at NOMA (New Orleans museum of Art) I had people in
> front of my prints all the time, asking of they were shot on film or  
> digital - no one - and I mean no one could tell which print was shot  
> with what - and these were  photographers, art people, curators and  
> "regular" folks.

In many contexts, digital and film are impossible to distinguish from
each other.

> The prints were all  13 x 19 printed on an Epson 2200, 7600 and a 9600
> on archival paper - some of them shot with Hasselblad, some with a 3.1
> MB Canon (D30) and some with a 10D and some with a 1Ds. The general  
> comment was "wow - these look like they are ALL shot on film".

Well, that could be good or bad, couldn't it?

> So much for the "digital is inferior and always have that Digital look"!

If film is inferior to digital, then saying "these look like they were
shot on film" means that the digital shots look pretty bad, doesn't it?