Digital BW, The Print

I'll confess, I'm a film die hard.

But I recently saw a very impressive print from a Canon 16 megapixel SLR.

It would have been maybe 1.2 x 40 cm.

Now, logic tells me film should be better.  I scan a B&W image at 4000
dpi - it resolves down to a level where the grain is just perceptible
as film grain using Tri X developed in Xtol.  That yields a 42MB file
with 16 bit grayscale.  And that's B&W so a colour file would be
around 120MB.

So, how can a 16 megapixel colour image (say 6MB grayscale image)
compete with a 42MB file?

Is this correct or am I missing something?

Cheers
Gareth

>I'll confess, I'm a film die hard.

I'm not. But I still haven't got a digital camera, because first I 
couldn't tell how best, and then I couldn't tell when best, to start 
to make the transition from film-only to primarily digital. I still 
can't, but I think only because I'm being more than usually neurotic 
about it.


>But I recently saw a very impressive print from a Canon 16 megapixel SLR.
>
>It would have been maybe 1.2 x 40 cm.
>
>Now, logic tells me film should be better.  I scan a B&W image at 4000
>dpi - it resolves down to a level where the grain is just perceptible
>as film grain using Tri X developed in Xtol.  That yields a 42MB file
>with 16 bit grayscale.  And that's B&W so a colour file would be
>around 120MB.
>
>So, how can a 16 megapixel colour image (say 6MB grayscale image)
>compete with a 42MB file?
>
>Is this correct or am I missing something?
>
>Cheers
>Gareth

I think the answer is yes and yes, Gareth, because the difference 
goes beyond the number of pixels and the logic has to chew on those 
differences as well as on file size. The conclusion is hard to 
believe, especially since we have some resistance to it, but for most 
shots, I don't think it's any longer in doubt.

That's not to say you can't do things with film you can't do with 
digital though. So why not jump in, find out what those things are, 
and enjoy the best of both technologies as far as you can afford to 
duplicate your investment in the film work flow?
--
Sam

P.S. You didn't say which scanner you're using, and I need a new one ... . 8)

I spent several years scanning 35mm negatives with a top end Nikon 
scanner and then with a Minolta 4000 dpi scanner(incidently, the Nikon 
was much better despite an advertised higher resolution for the 
Minolta).Earlier this year, I made the switch to a Canon 1ds Mark II, 
their 16 megapixal camera. I can tell you that it blows scanned 35mm 
out of the water. I have never used an Imacon or true drum scanner, but 
certainly this is true of the high end consumer model scanners. 
Additionally, I save hours of tedious spot cleaning of film scans. 
Keeping my sensor clean and spot cloning a few scattered spots in a 
digital image is a snap compared to cleaning a film scan with or 
without dust removing scanner software( Digital Ice, etc).The 16MP 
digital images blow up beautifully with Photoshop interpolation since 
there is little to no noise.
If you can afford the upfront costs, do youself a favor and take the 
digital plunge. 
Kevin Monroe

Thanks everyone

A couple of things

- like a few others on the list, obsolescence is an issue for me.  I'd
like the technology to stabilise before investing.  Top end digital is
also very expensive compared to top end 35mm

- I use a Leica M7 (and recently also an Xpan).  I'd like to get a
digilux, but at the moment, it's spec.s are well off the pace (5
megapixel).  Actually, ideally, I'd like a digital M where I could use
my existing lens.  To be honest, I wouldn't go back to an SLR.  The
Leica Ms are beautiful camera's to use and suit my style of photography

- I love darkroom printing - both from an aesthetic point of view and
simply as a relaxant.  Scanning film gives me the best of both worlds
for the moment.

- how does a 16MP camera give a 48M 8 bit RGB image?  There's
something I don't understand about how megapixels translate into file
size.  Can someone explain?

- how does digital compare with film for low light?  I shot a jazz
series a few years ago - Tri X pushed to 1600, mostly shot at full
aperture, no flash.

- I'm a gentleman amateur, so film cost is not so much an issue given
the volume I shoot

- and, yes, spotting is something I can do without!!  Keeping the
neg.s clean helps.

- incidentally, I have Coolscan 4000ED with roll film adapter.  It's a
good scanner - although, the funny thing is, I think I was getting
sharper scans with my old Coolscan LS20...  Of course, they were also
at a lower resolution and were only 8 bit...  Wonder if Nikon has been
economising on the lens?

Regards
Gareth

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "digikdm"
<monroekd@h...> wrote:

>
> I spent several years scanning 35mm negatives with a top end Nikon 
> scanner and then with a Minolta 4000 dpi scanner(incidently, the Nikon 
> was much better despite an advertised higher resolution for the 
> Minolta).Earlier this year, I made the switch to a Canon 1ds Mark II, 
> their 16 megapixal camera. I can tell you that it blows scanned 35mm 
> out of the water. I have never used an Imacon or true drum scanner, but 
> certainly this is true of the high end consumer model scanners. 
> Additionally, I save hours of tedious spot cleaning of film scans. 
> Keeping my sensor clean and spot cloning a few scattered spots in a 
> digital image is a snap compared to cleaning a film scan with or 
> without dust removing scanner software( Digital Ice, etc).The 16MP 
> digital images blow up beautifully with Photoshop interpolation since 
> there is little to no noise.
> If you can afford the upfront costs, do youself a favor and take the 
> digital plunge. 
> Kevin Monroe
>

Hi Gareth;

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "garethjolly" 
<garethjolly@y...> wrote:
>>  Top end digital is
> also very expensive compared to top end 35mm

Top end digital might be, but a Rebel XT and a couple lenses will 
get you excellent results for under $2000.00. That's less than many 
of your Leica lenses alone.


> 
> - I use a Leica M7 (and recently also an Xpan).  I'd like to get a
> digilux, but at the moment, it's spec.s are well off the pace (5
> megapixel).  Actually, ideally, I'd like a digital M where I could 
use
> my existing lens. 

Leica could well be out of business before you get your wish-I hope 
not, but there have been ominous rumblings 

>>To be honest, I wouldn't go back to an SLR.  

That's a shame, because the best reasonably priced digicams right 
now are DSLRs.


> - how does a 16MP camera give a 48M 8 bit RGB image?  There's
> something I don't understand about how megapixels translate into 
file
> size.  Can someone explain?

I'll let someone else get into the numbers on this, but consider:

Pixel dimensions on my Canon 5D (12.8MP about 42MB RGB) are: 4368 x 
2912. You need to feed an Epson a minimum of 200ppi to get good 
image quality, that divides out to an image size of 21.85 x 14.56 
inches. Un-interpolated, with no noise or "grain" up to ISO 400, and 
much less grain than Tri-X at ISO 1600. Though one could argue about 
the esthetics of real film grain v. digital 'noise' grain. With good 
interpolation software you can get an 8, 12.8 or 16MP image up to 
sizes I never dared think about with 35mm film. And with a wide-
format printer you can do it yourself at a reasonable price and 
no 'noise' from the lab techs.

> 
> 
> - incidentally, I have Coolscan 4000ED with roll film adapter.  
It's a
> good scanner - although, the funny thing is, I think I was getting
> sharper scans with my old Coolscan LS20...   Wonder if Nikon has 
been
> economising on the lens?

I have a Nikon 8000ED (medium format) and I don't think Nikon is 
econimizing on the lenses. If I have a grainy neg, the grain clearly 
gets resolved as such, not the mush you get from most flatbeds. But 
their optical path & light source make for a very limited depth of 
focus, and that roll film adapter is probably not up to keeping the 
film flat enough or in the best alignment all the time. 35mm film 
has a relatively pronounced arch towards the center that produces 
visible  focus fall-off. If you have some critical needs try their 
glass carrier-the max sharpness is reduced a tiny bit, but the 
entire neg is uniformly sharp.

At any rate, my advice is take a deep breath and jump on board. If 
you start with something that's current and popular, you can re-sell 
it in a yaer and get about 50% of your money to put into an upgrade. 
A year down the road you'll be using your film cameras so little 
you'll have to build them a special glass case with a brass plaque 
to memorialize them in. (G)

Regards,

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> 
> Pixel dimensions on my Canon 5D (12.8MP about 42MB RGB) are: 4368 x 
> 2912. You need to feed an Epson a minimum of 200ppi to get good 
> image quality, that divides out to an image size of 21.85 x 14.56 
> inches. Un-interpolated, with no noise or "grain" up to ISO 400, 

I bet if the image is nice and sharp, and low in noise I can get those 
images up to 44x30 (interpolated of course) without a problem (little 
to no loss of detail). Focus is critical, and so is low noise. Jpeg 
artifacts will scream at you when you increase like that, so will noise 
blocks.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
> Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> > 
> > Pixel dimensions on my Canon 5D (12.8MP about 42MB RGB) are: 
4368 x 
> > 2912. You need to feed an Epson a minimum of 200ppi to get good 
> > image quality, that divides out to an image size of 21.85 x 
14.56 
> > inches. Un-interpolated, with no noise or "grain" up to ISO 400, 
>

 
> I bet if the image is nice and sharp, and low in noise I can get 
those 
> images up to 44x30 (interpolated of course) without a problem 
(little 
> to no loss of detail). Focus is critical, and so is low noise. 
Jpeg 
> artifacts will scream at you when you increase like that, so will 
noise 
> blocks.
>

Yep, I'll bet you can. As for jpeg, I'm in the 'Raw is King' camp. 
It makes for a good filter: if I don't like the image well enough to 
give it the processing time and effort, then it doesn't deserve to 
live anyway!

Steve Karafyllakis

I too would have liked a digital M, but gave up hope several years ago 
and bought into the digital Nikon SLR world (to keep using my 
accumulation of Nikon lenses.)  There was considerable discussion on 
some of the Leica forums I used to visit (before I sold all my Leica, 
Nikon, Minox and Rollei film gear) that covered the technological in 
feasibility of successfully (i.e., usefully) mounting a digital sensor 
in a Leica-dimensioned body, given the current state of the art.  Epson 
made (still makes?) a digital rangefinder with a Leica mount but with a 
reduced-size sensor (smaller than 24x36mm) and so the delightful size of 
an M6 with a 35mm Summicron doesn't get you the same wide angle of view 
in the Epson that your get with film Leica.  The consensus of the 
technically knowledgeable  at the time was that the laws of physics 
simply precluded the production of digital sensors in 24x36 size that 
would work with existing Leica lenses at the lens-to-film distances used 
in the Leica rangefinders.  Sigh.

As for the obsolescence point, remember that a camera that takes fine 
pix today will take just as fine pix next year, even if there's a 
"better" model available next year.  Better models are announced 
continually in the digital world (who knows when, if ever, that will 
end) and by the time they're actually available in stores there 
frequently are at least rumors of even better models right around the 
corner.  Again, if it would be a good tool today, it will be a good tool 
tomorrow.  I paid full list for my Nikon D100 when it came out, and now 
I could buy it for half (if it's even still available) but I've had 
several years of wonderful use from it so far, and have no intentions of 
replacing it in the near future as it does what I need it to do.

I kept all of my film gear for more than a year after I got my D100, and 
after not taking a single frame of film in that time decided to let it 
go.  I was surprised that it didn't bother me in the least to let it go 
(I had had one of them, a Leica IIIc, since the 1950s) and I have not 
missed it in the years since.  I had a fair bit of Leica gear, including 
an M6 with 7 lenses (2 of them for the Visoflex - hard core!) and loved 
both having and using it, but the ease of MY getting better results with 
digital made it easy to let go.  I used to go through about 250 rolls of 
B&W film a year (and about 1 roll of color every 2 years) and did all my 
own developing and printing.  I now take MORE images digitally each 
year, "process" them much more quickly (a dozen or more contact sheets 
of a weekend's shooting hung up to dry within an hour or two of sitting 
down at the computer, and most of that time the software is compiling 
the contacts while I'm reading email) and create better looking (to ME) 
prints faster and easier than I ever did in a wet darkroom.

Of course, YMMV.

Cheers,
Kip

garethjolly wrote, in part:

>Thanks everyone
>
>A couple of things
>
>- like a few others on the list, obsolescence is an issue for me.  I'd
>like the technology to stabilise before investing.  Top end digital is
>also very expensive compared to top end 35mm
>
>- I use a Leica M7 (and recently also an Xpan).  I'd like to get a
>digilux, but at the moment, it's spec.s are well off the pace (5
>megapixel).  Actually, ideally, I'd like a digital M where I could use
>my existing lens.  To be honest, I wouldn't go back to an SLR.  The
>Leica Ms are beautiful camera's to use and suit my style of photography
>
>- I love darkroom printing - both from an aesthetic point of view and
>simply as a relaxant.  Scanning film gives me the best of both worlds
>for the moment.
><snip>
>

Well, there's always the Epson RD-1, which is an M mount digital 
rangefinder.

-Adam




Kip Babington wrote:

> I too would have liked a digital M, but gave up hope several years ago
> and bought into the digital Nikon SLR world (to keep using my
> accumulation of Nikon lenses.)  There was considerable discussion on
> some of the Leica forums I used to visit (before I sold all my Leica,
> Nikon, Minox and Rollei film gear) that covered the technological in
> feasibility of successfully (i.e., usefully) mounting a digital sensor
> in a Leica-dimensioned body, given the current state of the art.  Epson
> made (still makes?) a digital rangefinder with a Leica mount but with a
> reduced-size sensor (smaller than 24x36mm) and so the delightful size of
> an M6 with a 35mm Summicron doesn't get you the same wide angle of view
> in the Epson that your get with film Leica.  The consensus of the
> technically knowledgeable  at the time was that the laws of physics
> simply precluded the production of digital sensors in 24x36 size that
> would work with existing Leica lenses at the lens-to-film distances used
> in the Leica rangefinders.  Sigh.
> 
> As for the obsolescence point, remember that a camera that takes fine
> pix today will take just as fine pix next year, even if there's a
> "better" model available next year.  Better models are announced
> continually in the digital world (who knows when, if ever, that will
> end) and by the time they're actually available in stores there
> frequently are at least rumors of even better models right around the
> corner.  Again, if it would be a good tool today, it will be a good tool
> tomorrow.  I paid full list for my Nikon D100 when it came out, and now
> I could buy it for half (if it's even still available) but I've had
> several years of wonderful use from it so far, and have no intentions of
> replacing it in the near future as it does what I need it to do.
> 
> I kept all of my film gear for more than a year after I got my D100, and
> after not taking a single frame of film in that time decided to let it
> go.  I was surprised that it didn't bother me in the least to let it go
> (I had had one of them, a Leica IIIc, since the 1950s) and I have not
> missed it in the years since.  I had a fair bit of Leica gear, including
> an M6 with 7 lenses (2 of them for the Visoflex - hard core!) and loved
> both having and using it, but the ease of MY getting better results with
> digital made it easy to let go.  I used to go through about 250 rolls of
> B&W film a year (and about 1 roll of color every 2 years) and did all my
> own developing and printing.  I now take MORE images digitally each
> year, "process" them much more quickly (a dozen or more contact sheets
> of a weekend's shooting hung up to dry within an hour or two of sitting
> down at the computer, and most of that time the software is compiling
> the contacts while I'm reading email) and create better looking (to ME)
> prints faster and easier than I ever did in a wet darkroom.
> 
> Of course, YMMV.
> 
> Cheers,
> Kip
> 
> garethjolly wrote, in part:
> 
>  >Thanks everyone
>  >
>  >A couple of things
>  >
>  >- like a few others on the list, obsolescence is an issue for me.  I'd
>  >like the technology to stabilise before investing.  Top end digital is
>  >also very expensive compared to top end 35mm
>  >
>  >- I use a Leica M7 (and recently also an Xpan).  I'd like to get a
>  >digilux, but at the moment, it's spec.s are well off the pace (5
>  >megapixel).  Actually, ideally, I'd like a digital M where I could use
>  >my existing lens.  To be honest, I wouldn't go back to an SLR.  The
>  >Leica Ms are beautiful camera's to use and suit my style of photography
>  >
>  >- I love darkroom printing - both from an aesthetic point of view and
>  >simply as a relaxant.  Scanning film gives me the best of both worlds
>  >for the moment.
>  ><snip>
>  >

Yes, it's a bit distressing to see the big names of the film world
falling like flies.  Have to find a replacement for Agfa FB.  I'm also
conscious that Leica needs to get seriously into digital or go under.

I wasn't aware of the Epson.  Interesting article on it here

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml

Think I'll hold out a little longer - my golden rule on all things
computer related is to never buy before you have to.  I think I could
be tempted by a digilux with greater resolution than 5MP.

In the meantime, though, I have to try to master my scanner and R2400!
And either find a decent source for Epson VFA in Sydney or work out
how to use the Hahnmuele.  And work out a way of presenting my Xpan
images big... 

Thanks for all of the advice on the above, by the way.

Regards
Gareth

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Adam Maas
<mykroft@m...> wrote:
>
> Well, there's always the Epson RD-1, which is an M mount digital 
> rangefinder.
> 
> -Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kip Babington wrote:
> > I too would have liked a digital M, but gave up hope several years ago
> > and bought into the digital Nikon SLR world (to keep using my
> > accumulation of Nikon lenses.)  There was considerable discussion on
> > some of the Leica forums I used to visit (before I sold all my Leica,
> > Nikon, Minox and Rollei film gear) that covered the technological in
> > feasibility of successfully (i.e., usefully) mounting a digital sensor
> > in a Leica-dimensioned body, given the current state of the art. 
Epson
> > made (still makes?) a digital rangefinder with a Leica mount but
with a
> > reduced-size sensor (smaller than 24x36mm) and so the delightful
size of
> > an M6 with a 35mm Summicron doesn't get you the same wide angle of
view
> > in the Epson that your get with film Leica.  The consensus of the
> > technically knowledgeable  at the time was that the laws of physics
> > simply precluded the production of digital sensors in 24x36 size that
> > would work with existing Leica lenses at the lens-to-film
distances used
> > in the Leica rangefinders.  Sigh.
> > 
> > As for the obsolescence point, remember that a camera that takes fine
> > pix today will take just as fine pix next year, even if there's a
> > "better" model available next year.  Better models are announced
> > continually in the digital world (who knows when, if ever, that will
> > end) and by the time they're actually available in stores there
> > frequently are at least rumors of even better models right around the
> > corner.  Again, if it would be a good tool today, it will be a
good tool
> > tomorrow.  I paid full list for my Nikon D100 when it came out,
and now
> > I could buy it for half (if it's even still available) but I've had
> > several years of wonderful use from it so far, and have no
intentions of
> > replacing it in the near future as it does what I need it to do.
> > 
> > I kept all of my film gear for more than a year after I got my
D100, and
> > after not taking a single frame of film in that time decided to let it
> > go.  I was surprised that it didn't bother me in the least to let
it go
> > (I had had one of them, a Leica IIIc, since the 1950s) and I have not
> > missed it in the years since.  I had a fair bit of Leica gear,
including
> > an M6 with 7 lenses (2 of them for the Visoflex - hard core!) and
loved
> > both having and using it, but the ease of MY getting better
results with
> > digital made it easy to let go.  I used to go through about 250
rolls of
> > B&W film a year (and about 1 roll of color every 2 years) and did
all my
> > own developing and printing.  I now take MORE images digitally each
> > year, "process" them much more quickly (a dozen or more contact sheets
> > of a weekend's shooting hung up to dry within an hour or two of
sitting
> > down at the computer, and most of that time the software is compiling
> > the contacts while I'm reading email) and create better looking
(to ME)
> > prints faster and easier than I ever did in a wet darkroom.
> > 
> > Of course, YMMV.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Kip
> > 
> > garethjolly wrote, in part:
> > 
> >  >Thanks everyone
> >  >
> >  >A couple of things
> >  >
> >  >- like a few others on the list, obsolescence is an issue for
me.  I'd
> >  >like the technology to stabilise before investing.  Top end
digital is
> >  >also very expensive compared to top end 35mm
> >  >
> >  >- I use a Leica M7 (and recently also an Xpan).  I'd like to get a
> >  >digilux, but at the moment, it's spec.s are well off the pace (5
> >  >megapixel).  Actually, ideally, I'd like a digital M where I
could use
> >  >my existing lens.  To be honest, I wouldn't go back to an SLR.  The
> >  >Leica Ms are beautiful camera's to use and suit my style of
photography
> >  >
> >  >- I love darkroom printing - both from an aesthetic point of
view and
> >  >simply as a relaxant.  Scanning film gives me the best of both
worlds

> >  >for the moment.
> >  ><snip>
> >  >
>

The article in Luminous landscape (at a quick glance) seems to 
highlight what in my opinion is the biggest drawback of digital 
cameras -- ie. the limited dynamic range of the sensor. We can burn 
down blown highlights (eg clouds) with negative film. In fact a C41 
process b&w film gives us the ability to record detail in the 
brightest highlights and deepest shadows. Blown highlights and 
blocked shadows have no place in landscape photography and as such I 
am not ready to make the digital leap. 
I have 300 feet of Tech Pan in the freezer to use on lower contrast 
subjects and teamed with my Zeiss lenses (35mm) and 5400dpi scanner I 
have no worries about big enlargements. The only digicam files I have 
handled came from the D70. I am impressed by the apparent sharpness 
(down to acutance ie. in camera sharpening rather than resolution). 
The out of focus areas are not as pretty as those recorded by my 
Zeiss lenses and I am troubled by the plasticity of smooth blue skies 
etc (I was brought up on grain). Blown highlights rear their nasty 
head in most files I have handled.
The camera handling was awful compared to my Contax RX and AX bodies.
I am sure the day will come when I make the transition but I am not 
ready yet by a long way. The biggest benefit will be being freed from 
hours of cleaning dust (cloning) though I feel I bond with the 
pictures during this lengthy process! I wonder if all those digital 
files so easily recorded and filed away after a weekend's shooting 
get another look!
I would be interested to know if I am talking garbage -- I admit I 
have limited experience of the subject. I'll stick with film for now -
- "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

Pete.




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "garethjolly" 
<garethjolly@y...> wrote:
>
> Yes, it's a bit distressing to see the big names of the film world
> falling like flies.  Have to find a replacement for Agfa FB.  I'm 
also
> conscious that Leica needs to get seriously into digital or go 
under.
> 
> I wasn't aware of the Epson.  Interesting article on it here
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
> 
> Think I'll hold out a little longer - my golden rule on all things
> computer related is to never buy before you have to.  I think I 
could
> be tempted by a digilux with greater resolution than 5MP.
> 
> In the meantime, though, I have to try to master my scanner and 
R2400!
> And either find a decent source for Epson VFA in Sydney or work out
> how to use the Hahnmuele.  And work out a way of presenting my Xpan
> images big... 
> 
> Thanks for all of the advice on the above, by the way.
> 
> Regards
> Gareth
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Adam Maas
> <mykroft@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, there's always the Epson RD-1, which is an M mount digital 
> > rangefinder.
> > 
> > -Adam
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Kip Babington wrote:
> > > I too would have liked a digital M, but gave up hope several 
years ago
> > > and bought into the digital Nikon SLR world (to keep using my
> > > accumulation of Nikon lenses.)  There was considerable 
discussion on
> > > some of the Leica forums I used to visit (before I sold all my 
Leica,
> > > Nikon, Minox and Rollei film gear) that covered the 
technological in
> > > feasibility of successfully (i.e., usefully) mounting a digital 
sensor
> > > in a Leica-dimensioned body, given the current state of the 
art. 
> Epson
> > > made (still makes?) a digital rangefinder with a Leica mount but
> with a
> > > reduced-size sensor (smaller than 24x36mm) and so the delightful
> size of
> > > an M6 with a 35mm Summicron doesn't get you the same wide angle 
of
> view
> > > in the Epson that your get with film Leica.  The consensus of 
the
> > > technically knowledgeable  at the time was that the laws of 
physics
> > > simply precluded the production of digital sensors in 24x36 
size that
> > > would work with existing Leica lenses at the lens-to-film
> distances used
> > > in the Leica rangefinders.  Sigh.
> > > 
> > > As for the obsolescence point, remember that a camera that 
takes fine
> > > pix today will take just as fine pix next year, even if there's 
a
> > > "better" model available next year.  Better models are announced
> > > continually in the digital world (who knows when, if ever, that 
will
> > > end) and by the time they're actually available in stores there
> > > frequently are at least rumors of even better models right 
around the
> > > corner.  Again, if it would be a good tool today, it will be a
> good tool
> > > tomorrow.  I paid full list for my Nikon D100 when it came out,
> and now
> > > I could buy it for half (if it's even still available) but I've 
had
> > > several years of wonderful use from it so far, and have no
> intentions of
> > > replacing it in the near future as it does what I need it to do.
> > > 
> > > I kept all of my film gear for more than a year after I got my
> D100, and
> > > after not taking a single frame of film in that time decided to 
let it
> > > go.  I was surprised that it didn't bother me in the least to 
let
> it go
> > > (I had had one of them, a Leica IIIc, since the 1950s) and I 
have not
> > > missed it in the years since.  I had a fair bit of Leica gear,
> including
> > > an M6 with 7 lenses (2 of them for the Visoflex - hard core!) 
and
> loved
> > > both having and using it, but the ease of MY getting better
> results with
> > > digital made it easy to let go.  I used to go through about 250
> rolls of
> > > B&W film a year (and about 1 roll of color every 2 years) and 
did
> all my
> > > own developing and printing.  I now take MORE images digitally 
each
> > > year, "process" them much more quickly (a dozen or more contact 
sheets
> > > of a weekend's shooting hung up to dry within an hour or two of
> sitting
> > > down at the computer, and most of that time the software is 
compiling
> > > the contacts while I'm reading email) and create better looking
> (to ME)
> > > prints faster and easier than I ever did in a wet darkroom.
> > > 
> > > Of course, YMMV.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Kip
> > > 
> > > garethjolly wrote, in part:
> > > 
> > >  >Thanks everyone
> > >  >
> > >  >A couple of things
> > >  >
> > >  >- like a few others on the list, obsolescence is an issue for
> me.  I'd
> > >  >like the technology to stabilise before investing.  Top end
> digital is
> > >  >also very expensive compared to top end 35mm
> > >  >
> > >  >- I use a Leica M7 (and recently also an Xpan).  I'd like to 
get a
> > >  >digilux, but at the moment, it's spec.s are well off the pace 
(5
> > >  >megapixel).  Actually, ideally, I'd like a digital M where I
> could use
> > >  >my existing lens.  To be honest, I wouldn't go back to an 
SLR.  The

> > >  >Leica Ms are beautiful camera's to use and suit my style of
> photography
> > >  >
> > >  >- I love darkroom printing - both from an aesthetic point of
> view and
> > >  >simply as a relaxant.  Scanning film gives me the best of both
> worlds
> > >  >for the moment.
> > >  ><snip>
> > >  >
> >
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> 
wrote:
>Hello,

I'll put in my two cents worth.

1. Go to dpreview.com. It's a very good site with in-depth reviews of digital cameras in all 
price points. And they don't carry water for anyone.

2. However, I'd like to plug Nikon. I have a D70 with the DX 18-70 lens. This combination 
cost $1,200. The D50 is about $300-$400 less and the new D200 (the camera I'm pining 
for) goes for $1,800.

3. By the way, the new Hassleblad H2 costs $26,990. No that's not a typo.

Good luck in your digital camera hunt!

> Hi Gareth;
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "garethjolly" 
> <garethjolly@y...> wrote:
> >>  Top end digital is
> > also very expensive compared to top end 35mm
> 
> Top end digital might be, but a Rebel XT and a couple lenses will 
> get you excellent results for under $2000.00. That's less than many 
> of your Leica lenses alone.
> 
> 
> > 
> > - I use a Leica M7 (and recently also an Xpan).  I'd like to get a
> > digilux, but at the moment, it's spec.s are well off the pace (5
> > megapixel).  Actually, ideally, I'd like a digital M where I could 
> use
> > my existing lens. 
> 
> Leica could well be out of business before you get your wish-I hope 
> not, but there have been ominous rumblings 
> 
> >>To be honest, I wouldn't go back to an SLR.  
> 
> That's a shame, because the best reasonably priced digicams right 
> now are DSLRs.
> 
> 
> > - how does a 16MP camera give a 48M 8 bit RGB image?  There's
> > something I don't understand about how megapixels translate into 
> file
> > size.  Can someone explain?
> 
> I'll let someone else get into the numbers on this, but consider:
> 
> Pixel dimensions on my Canon 5D (12.8MP about 42MB RGB) are: 4368 x 
> 2912. You need to feed an Epson a minimum of 200ppi to get good 
> image quality, that divides out to an image size of 21.85 x 14.56 
> inches. Un-interpolated, with no noise or "grain" up to ISO 400, and 
> much less grain than Tri-X at ISO 1600. Though one could argue about 
> the esthetics of real film grain v. digital 'noise' grain. With good 
> interpolation software you can get an 8, 12.8 or 16MP image up to 
> sizes I never dared think about with 35mm film. And with a wide-
> format printer you can do it yourself at a reasonable price and 
> no 'noise' from the lab techs.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > - incidentally, I have Coolscan 4000ED with roll film adapter.  
> It's a
> > good scanner - although, the funny thing is, I think I was getting
> > sharper scans with my old Coolscan LS20...   Wonder if Nikon has 
> been
> > economising on the lens?
> 
> I have a Nikon 8000ED (medium format) and I don't think Nikon is 
> econimizing on the lenses. If I have a grainy neg, the grain clearly 
> gets resolved as such, not the mush you get from most flatbeds. But 
> their optical path & light source make for a very limited depth of 
> focus, and that roll film adapter is probably not up to keeping the 
> film flat enough or in the best alignment all the time. 35mm film 
> has a relatively pronounced arch towards the center that produces 
> visible  focus fall-off. If you have some critical needs try their 
> glass carrier-the max sharpness is reduced a tiny bit, but the 
> entire neg is uniformly sharp.
> 
> At any rate, my advice is take a deep breath and jump on board. If 
> you start with something that's current and popular, you can re-sell 
> it in a yaer and get about 50% of your money to put into an upgrade. 
> A year down the road you'll be using your film cameras so little 
> you'll have to build them a special glass case with a brass plaque 
> to memorialize them in. (G)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis
>

You could have a look at the measurements presented at clarkvision.com
on this subject, for example, (although mainly about colour there is
some info on B&W). Then you could think how to exploit the benefits
and avoid the problems with your style of photography.  It is very
likely possible if you want to, of course not for every possible style.

It is not hard to put noise in your skies if you desire.  Nor are
blown highlights mandatory.  Digital capture is just another tool and
not a bad one (of course film is fine too).  

For some subjects I can get great resolution from my digital cameras 
(>10k pixel square images or more from a cheap DSLR using panorama
tools) -better than I ever got from my SL66. Doesn't suit your style?
No problem!  

What about "combinez" for as much depth of field as with large format
tilting? Too much work?  I'd argue not much more work than it took to
dev a 4x5 sheet in two-bath.   

Half way through a day the light changes from "Tech Pan"  to "Delta
400" - no problem, I can make characteristic curves as I like in the
raw converter much better than I ever could with mono developers etc. 
Also a mistake does not ruin the "whole film".  

Want more dynamic range? Well neg film has great dynamic range but
appalling resolution in the shadows. Easy (in principle) to mimik that
by using noise reduction in the shadows (actually very tricky to get
it right, I find, but I think that is my lack of competance). Or by
stacking images (hard though, even for static subjects).

For me the two real advantages of digital capture are the 30 times or
so better sensitivity to light (OK, not with quite the same
resolution, yet, a factor of ~2 to go there), and the option to choose
the characterisitic curve.    The former is invaluable on a mountain
top, the latter helps a lot in many lighting conditions.
A big disadvantage is initial purchase cost, but it is getting there,
slowly.  

Great fun and very rewarding.  Not a replacement in all respects.  

Ken

Hello Pete,

>I would be interested to know if I am talking garbage -- I admit 
>I have limited experience of the subject. I'll stick with film for 
>now -

No, you aren't talking garbage.  Everything you listed is true, but as
you say, you are speaking with limited digital experience.  Consider
this: the vast majority (probably in the high 90's %-wise) of film
photographers who try digital capture don't go back.  There must be a
reason for that, in spite of all the things you mentioned.

The hardest part of making the transition is accepting/realizing that
digital sensors are not an electrical version of film.  I went through
a mourning period where I tried unsuccessfully to make my images look
like the Tri-X I loved for years.  I finally understood that I was
dealing with a completely different medium, so I stopped trying to
make it be something else and began learning how to use it.  What I
think all serious photographers have found is that there are
workarounds for the things you discussed.  Film has certain advantages
over digital, but the reverse is also true.

It isn't the same as film.  Once you accept that, a whole new
wonderful world opens up.  An analogy might be a painter who switches
from acrylic to oil, or vice-versa.  This isn't meant to change your
mind.  I think you should continue as you are.  When the time is right
it will be compelling in its own unique way for you, and it won't be a
decision to be made.  You'll just want to do it.  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Ken -- you make some very good points as does the very balanced 
article at Clarkvision.com. It confirms for me that I am not yet 
ready to plunge into digital camera's. However I would be there like 
a shot if I were a wildlife photographer. Presently I have the time 
to spend on afterwork which is very considerable with scanned film. 
If I didn't then digital would become essential.
I await the 25MP digital camera for below $2000! Will I be waiting 
forever?? LOL.

Pete

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "kenstrain2000" 
<kenstrain2000@y...> wrote:
>
> You could have a look at the measurements presented at 
clarkvision.com
> on this subject, for example, (although mainly about colour there is
> some info on B&W). Then you could think how to exploit the benefits
> and avoid the problems with your style of photography.  It is very
> likely possible if you want to, of course not for every possible 
style.
> 
> It is not hard to put noise in your skies if you desire.  Nor are
> blown highlights mandatory.  Digital capture is just another tool 
and
> not a bad one (of course film is fine too).  
> 
> For some subjects I can get great resolution from my digital 
cameras 
> (>10k pixel square images or more from a cheap DSLR using panorama
> tools) -better than I ever got from my SL66. Doesn't suit your 
style?
> No problem!  
> 
> What about "combinez" for as much depth of field as with large 
format
> tilting? Too much work?  I'd argue not much more work than it took 
to
> dev a 4x5 sheet in two-bath.   
> 
> Half way through a day the light changes from "Tech Pan"  to "Delta
> 400" - no problem, I can make characteristic curves as I like in the
> raw converter much better than I ever could with mono developers 
etc. 
> Also a mistake does not ruin the "whole film".  
> 
> Want more dynamic range? Well neg film has great dynamic range but
> appalling resolution in the shadows. Easy (in principle) to mimik 
that
> by using noise reduction in the shadows (actually very tricky to get
> it right, I find, but I think that is my lack of competance). Or by
> stacking images (hard though, even for static subjects).
> 
> For me the two real advantages of digital capture are the 30 times 
or
> so better sensitivity to light (OK, not with quite the same
> resolution, yet, a factor of ~2 to go there), and the option to 
choose
> the characterisitic curve.    The former is invaluable on a mountain
> top, the latter helps a lot in many lighting conditions.
> A big disadvantage is initial purchase cost, but it is getting 
there,

> slowly.  
> 
> Great fun and very rewarding.  Not a replacement in all respects.  
> 
> Ken
>

Thanks Clayton -- I know I wouldn't go back to film too because of 
the ease of processing the results. Perhaps this is why I don't make 
the change --it has to be made for reasons of quality rather than 
convenience. When the quality is better and affordable then I will 
reconsider. For wildlife photographers digital is already there -- 
for landscape maybe not.

Pete

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
>
> Hello Pete,
> 
> >I would be interested to know if I am talking garbage -- I admit 
> >I have limited experience of the subject. I'll stick with film for 
> >now -
> 
> No, you aren't talking garbage.  Everything you listed is true, but 
as
> you say, you are speaking with limited digital experience.  Consider
> this: the vast majority (probably in the high 90's %-wise) of film
> photographers who try digital capture don't go back.  There must be 
a
> reason for that, in spite of all the things you mentioned.
> 
> The hardest part of making the transition is accepting/realizing 
that
> digital sensors are not an electrical version of film.  I went 
through
> a mourning period where I tried unsuccessfully to make my images 
look
> like the Tri-X I loved for years.  I finally understood that I was
> dealing with a completely different medium, so I stopped trying to
> make it be something else and began learning how to use it.  What I
> think all serious photographers have found is that there are
> workarounds for the things you discussed.  Film has certain 
advantages
> over digital, but the reverse is also true.
> 
> It isn't the same as film.  Once you accept that, a whole new
> wonderful world opens up.  An analogy might be a painter who 
switches
> from acrylic to oil, or vice-versa.  This isn't meant to change your
> mind.  I think you should continue as you are.  When the time is 
right
> it will be compelling in its own unique way for you, and it won't 
be a

> decision to be made.  You'll just want to do it.  
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Pete,  This has been a topic of discussion for quite some time, and,I am
certain many could cover it better than me. There are many "areas" to
consider beside the final product being the print. I don't make much money
on my photography, so I am reluctant to abandon what has taken 20 yrs to
build. The other factor I look at is the darkroom is part of the fun for me.
I have  dabbled into digital and within 6 months, everything was replaced by
something else. Some on the list enjoy computers  , I enjoy working with the
wet darkroom, further I am sick of the throw away mentality that that has
accelerated  with the industry. I wish no offense to anyone, I joined to
learn, just still enjoy what I do regardless of the manufactures propaganda.
Dan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "petexp2" <kafoozalem@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 4:56 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Film vs Digital


The article in Luminous landscape (at a quick glance) seems to
highlight what in my opinion is the biggest drawback of digital
cameras -- ie. the limited dynamic range of the sensor. We can burn
down blown highlights (eg clouds) with negative film. In fact a C41
process b&w film gives us the ability to record detail in the
brightest highlights and deepest shadows. Blown highlights and
blocked shadows have no place in landscape photography and as such I
am not ready to make the digital leap.
I have 300 feet of Tech Pan in the freezer to use on lower contrast
subjects and teamed with my Zeiss lenses (35mm) and 5400dpi scanner I
have no worries about big enlargements. The only digicam files I have
handled came from the D70. I am impressed by the apparent sharpness
(down to acutance ie. in camera sharpening rather than resolution).
The out of focus areas are not as pretty as those recorded by my
Zeiss lenses and I am troubled by the plasticity of smooth blue skies
etc (I was brought up on grain). Blown highlights rear their nasty
head in most files I have handled.
The camera handling was awful compared to my Contax RX and AX bodies.
I am sure the day will come when I make the transition but I am not
ready yet by a long way. The biggest benefit will be being freed from
hours of cleaning dust (cloning) though I feel I bond with the
pictures during this lengthy process! I wonder if all those digital
files so easily recorded and filed away after a weekend's shooting
get another look!
I would be interested to know if I am talking garbage -- I admit I
have limited experience of the subject. I'll stick with film for now -
- "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

Pete.




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "garethjolly"
<garethjolly@y...> wrote:
>
> Yes, it's a bit distressing to see the big names of the film world
> falling like flies.  Have to find a replacement for Agfa FB.  I'm
also
> conscious that Leica needs to get seriously into digital or go
under.
>
> I wasn't aware of the Epson.  Interesting article on it here
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
>
> Think I'll hold out a little longer - my golden rule on all things
> computer related is to never buy before you have to.  I think I
could
> be tempted by a digilux with greater resolution than 5MP.
>
> In the meantime, though, I have to try to master my scanner and
R2400!
> And either find a decent source for Epson VFA in Sydney or work out
> how to use the Hahnmuele.  And work out a way of presenting my Xpan
> images big...
>
> Thanks for all of the advice on the above, by the way.
>
> Regards
> Gareth
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Adam Maas
> <mykroft@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, there's always the Epson RD-1, which is an M mount digital
> > rangefinder.
> >
> > -Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Kip Babington wrote:
> > > I too would have liked a digital M, but gave up hope several
years ago
> > > and bought into the digital Nikon SLR world (to keep using my
> > > accumulation of Nikon lenses.)  There was considerable
discussion on
> > > some of the Leica forums I used to visit (before I sold all my
Leica,
> > > Nikon, Minox and Rollei film gear) that covered the
technological in
> > > feasibility of successfully (i.e., usefully) mounting a digital
sensor
> > > in a Leica-dimensioned body, given the current state of the
art.
> Epson
> > > made (still makes?) a digital rangefinder with a Leica mount but
> with a
> > > reduced-size sensor (smaller than 24x36mm) and so the delightful
> size of
> > > an M6 with a 35mm Summicron doesn't get you the same wide angle
of
> view
> > > in the Epson that your get with film Leica.  The consensus of
the
> > > technically knowledgeable  at the time was that the laws of
physics
> > > simply precluded the production of digital sensors in 24x36
size that
> > > would work with existing Leica lenses at the lens-to-film
> distances used
> > > in the Leica rangefinders.  Sigh.
> > >
> > > As for the obsolescence point, remember that a camera that
takes fine
> > > pix today will take just as fine pix next year, even if there's
a
> > > "better" model available next year.  Better models are announced
> > > continually in the digital world (who knows when, if ever, that
will
> > > end) and by the time they're actually available in stores there
> > > frequently are at least rumors of even better models right
around the
> > > corner.  Again, if it would be a good tool today, it will be a
> good tool
> > > tomorrow.  I paid full list for my Nikon D100 when it came out,
> and now
> > > I could buy it for half (if it's even still available) but I've
had
> > > several years of wonderful use from it so far, and have no
> intentions of
> > > replacing it in the near future as it does what I need it to do.
> > >
> > > I kept all of my film gear for more than a year after I got my
> D100, and
> > > after not taking a single frame of film in that time decided to
let it
> > > go.  I was surprised that it didn't bother me in the least to
let
> it go
> > > (I had had one of them, a Leica IIIc, since the 1950s) and I
have not
> > > missed it in the years since.  I had a fair bit of Leica gear,
> including
> > > an M6 with 7 lenses (2 of them for the Visoflex - hard core!)
and
> loved
> > > both having and using it, but the ease of MY getting better
> results with
> > > digital made it easy to let go.  I used to go through about 250
> rolls of
> > > B&W film a year (and about 1 roll of color every 2 years) and
did
> all my
> > > own developing and printing.  I now take MORE images digitally
each
> > > year, "process" them much more quickly (a dozen or more contact
sheets
> > > of a weekend's shooting hung up to dry within an hour or two of
> sitting
> > > down at the computer, and most of that time the software is
compiling
> > > the contacts while I'm reading email) and create better looking
> (to ME)
> > > prints faster and easier than I ever did in a wet darkroom.
> > >
> > > Of course, YMMV.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Kip
> > >
> > > garethjolly wrote, in part:
> > >
> > >  >Thanks everyone
> > >  >
> > >  >A couple of things
> > >  >
> > >  >- like a few others on the list, obsolescence is an issue for
> me.  I'd
> > >  >like the technology to stabilise before investing.  Top end
> digital is
> > >  >also very expensive compared to top end 35mm
> > >  >
> > >  >- I use a Leica M7 (and recently also an Xpan).  I'd like to
get a
> > >  >digilux, but at the moment, it's spec.s are well off the pace
(5
> > >  >megapixel).  Actually, ideally, I'd like a digital M where I
> could use
> > >  >my existing lens.  To be honest, I wouldn't go back to an
SLR.  The
> > >  >Leica Ms are beautiful camera's to use and suit my style of
> photography
> > >  >
> > >  >- I love darkroom printing - both from an aesthetic point of
> view and
> > >  >simply as a relaxant.  Scanning film gives me the best of both
> worlds
> > >  >for the moment.
> > >  ><snip>
> > >  >
> >
>







Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links







--MX2

--MX3


--MX3

There might be more to film vs. digital than specs.  I have a friend
that only takes family pictures that said to me that her reason for not
going digital was because it was so wonderful NOT TO be able to se the
picture right after exposure. - I know, for a professional responsible
for the result of a photo-shoot that is not a good thing. But think
about it for a while, what does this statement contain?  
 
For me it have something to do with "bonding" to the picture that Pete
talks about. As an "art photographer" that don't have to make a customer
happy I have experienced that pictures "grow" on me after a while. When
cloning away dust on exposures that I thought was -just- good enough not
to discard at once - I have seen new possibilities, new values. Its like
I have a chance to rediscover my pictures. And when I put more work into
getting to be able to see the results from my work with the camera
(=developing) - and some time have passed since the pictures were shot -
I become more interested in discovering ANY good values of each
exposure.
 
 What I aim at here is that it might be a good thing to have to work
some with your pictures to be able to find their actual "value". With
digital its so easy to take thousands exposures - it doesn't cost you a
thing, you don't have to reflect before pushing the button. And when you
have pushed the button and see the result at once you only look for the
one thing that you have in mind in the moment of exposure. If that was
not successful you throw it away, you don't ever go back to it. 
 
...Well, going for a digital camera might give you many benefits, but I
think you must act more disciplined- restrain yourself from pushing that
button all the time. With a medium format camera you know you have 12
exposures or less before you must stop for changing film. I think that
forces you to work in a bit more reflected way. And that is a good
thing.
 
 

MVH

FinnK




-----------------------
Finn Krogvig



-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] På vegne av
petexp2
Sendt: 10. desember 2005 11:56
Til: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Emne: [Digital BW] Re: Film vs Digital


The article in Luminous landscape (at a quick glance) seems to 
highlight what in my opinion is the biggest drawback of digital 
cameras -- ie. the limited dynamic range of the sensor. We can burn 
down blown highlights (eg clouds) with negative film. In fact a C41 
process b&w film gives us the ability to record detail in the 
brightest highlights and deepest shadows. Blown highlights and 
blocked shadows have no place in landscape photography and as such I 
am not ready to make the digital leap. 
I have 300 feet of Tech Pan in the freezer to use on lower contrast 
subjects and teamed with my Zeiss lenses (35mm) and 5400dpi scanner I 
have no worries about big enlargements. The only digicam files I have 
handled came from the D70. I am impressed by the apparent sharpness 
(down to acutance ie. in camera sharpening rather than resolution). 
The out of focus areas are not as pretty as those recorded by my 
Zeiss lenses and I am troubled by the plasticity of smooth blue skies 
etc (I was brought up on grain). Blown highlights rear their nasty 
head in most files I have handled.
The camera handling was awful compared to my Contax RX and AX bodies.
I am sure the day will come when I make the transition but I am not 
ready yet by a long way. The biggest benefit will be being freed from 
hours of cleaning dust (cloning) though I feel I bond with the 
pictures during this lengthy process! I wonder if all those digital 
files so easily recorded and filed away after a weekend's shooting 
get another look!
I would be interested to know if I am talking garbage -- I admit I 
have limited experience of the subject. I'll stick with film for now -
- "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

Pete.




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "garethjolly" 
<garethjolly@y...> wrote:
>
> Yes, it's a bit distressing to see the big names of the film world
> falling like flies.  Have to find a replacement for Agfa FB.  I'm 
also
> conscious that Leica needs to get seriously into digital or go 
under.
> 
> I wasn't aware of the Epson.  Interesting article on it here
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
> 
> Think I'll hold out a little longer - my golden rule on all things
> computer related is to never buy before you have to.  I think I 
could
> be tempted by a digilux with greater resolution than 5MP.
> 
> In the meantime, though, I have to try to master my scanner and 
R2400!
> And either find a decent source for Epson VFA in Sydney or work out
> how to use the Hahnmuele.  And work out a way of presenting my Xpan
> images big... 
> 
> Thanks for all of the advice on the above, by the way.
> 
> Regards
> Gareth
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Adam Maas
> <mykroft@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, there's always the Epson RD-1, which is an M mount digital 
> > rangefinder.
> > 
> > -Adam
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Kip Babington wrote:
> > > I too would have liked a digital M, but gave up hope several 
years ago
> > > and bought into the digital Nikon SLR world (to keep using my
> > > accumulation of Nikon lenses.)  There was considerable 
discussion on
> > > some of the Leica forums I used to visit (before I sold all my 
Leica,
> > > Nikon, Minox and Rollei film gear) that covered the 
technological in
> > > feasibility of successfully (i.e., usefully) mounting a digital 
sensor
> > > in a Leica-dimensioned body, given the current state of the 
art. 
> Epson
> > > made (still makes?) a digital rangefinder with a Leica mount but
> with a
> > > reduced-size sensor (smaller than 24x36mm) and so the delightful
> size of
> > > an M6 with a 35mm Summicron doesn't get you the same wide angle 
of
> view
> > > in the Epson that your get with film Leica.  The consensus of 
the
> > > technically knowledgeable  at the time was that the laws of 
physics
> > > simply precluded the production of digital sensors in 24x36 
size that
> > > would work with existing Leica lenses at the lens-to-film
> distances used
> > > in the Leica rangefinders.  Sigh.
> > > 
> > > As for the obsolescence point, remember that a camera that 
takes fine
> > > pix today will take just as fine pix next year, even if there's 
a
> > > "better" model available next year.  Better models are announced
> > > continually in the digital world (who knows when, if ever, that 
will
> > > end) and by the time they're actually available in stores there
> > > frequently are at least rumors of even better models right 
around the
> > > corner.  Again, if it would be a good tool today, it will be a
> good tool
> > > tomorrow.  I paid full list for my Nikon D100 when it came out,
> and now
> > > I could buy it for half (if it's even still available) but I've 
had
> > > several years of wonderful use from it so far, and have no
> intentions of
> > > replacing it in the near future as it does what I need it to do.
> > > 
> > > I kept all of my film gear for more than a year after I got my
> D100, and
> > > after not taking a single frame of film in that time decided to 
let it
> > > go.  I was surprised that it didn't bother me in the least to 
let
> it go
> > > (I had had one of them, a Leica IIIc, since the 1950s) and I 
have not
> > > missed it in the years since.  I had a fair bit of Leica gear,
> including
> > > an M6 with 7 lenses (2 of them for the Visoflex - hard core!) 
and
> loved
> > > both having and using it, but the ease of MY getting better
> results with
> > > digital made it easy to let go.  I used to go through about 250
> rolls of
> > > B&W film a year (and about 1 roll of color every 2 years) and 
did
> all my
> > > own developing and printing.  I now take MORE images digitally 
each
> > > year, "process" them much more quickly (a dozen or more contact 
sheets
> > > of a weekend's shooting hung up to dry within an hour or two of
> sitting
> > > down at the computer, and most of that time the software is 
compiling
> > > the contacts while I'm reading email) and create better looking
> (to ME)
> > > prints faster and easier than I ever did in a wet darkroom.
> > > 
> > > Of course, YMMV.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Kip
> > > 
> > > garethjolly wrote, in part:
> > > 
> > >  >Thanks everyone
> > >  >
> > >  >A couple of things
> > >  >
> > >  >- like a few others on the list, obsolescence is an issue for
> me.  I'd
> > >  >like the technology to stabilise before investing.  Top end
> digital is
> > >  >also very expensive compared to top end 35mm
> > >  >
> > >  >- I use a Leica M7 (and recently also an Xpan).  I'd like to 
get a
> > >  >digilux, but at the moment, it's spec.s are well off the pace 
(5
> > >  >megapixel).  Actually, ideally, I'd like a digital M where I
> could use
> > >  >my existing lens.  To be honest, I wouldn't go back to an 
SLR.  The
> > >  >Leica Ms are beautiful camera's to use and suit my style of
> photography
> > >  >
> > >  >- I love darkroom printing - both from an aesthetic point of
> view and
> > >  >simply as a relaxant.  Scanning film gives me the best of both
> worlds
> > >  >for the moment.
> > >  ><snip>
> > >  >
> >
>






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources
as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed
from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files
section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
“OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA;
(iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW,
THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




  _____  

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 


	
*	 Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> " on the
web.
  

*	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject
=Unsubscribe> 
  

*	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . 


  _____  




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

The one problem with waiting is that there is a learning curve involved with handling digital.  Just like there was with film.  So, the longer you wait, the longer it will be before you can master the inevitable new medium.
   
  (Oh yes.  I still miss the look of the old Ansco V film in 4x5.  But, it's gone.)
   
  Tom Baker

petexp2 <kafoozalem@...> wrote:
  Ken -- you make some very good points as does the very balanced 
article at Clarkvision.com. It confirms for me that I am not yet 
ready to plunge into digital camera's. However I would be there like 
a shot if I were a wildlife photographer. Presently I have the time 
to spend on afterwork which is very considerable with scanned film. 
If I didn't then digital would become essential.
I await the 25MP digital camera for below $2000! Will I be waiting 
forever?? LOL.

Pete

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "kenstrain2000" 
<kenstrain2000@y...> wrote:
>
> You could have a look at the measurements presented at 
clarkvision.com
> on this subject, for example, (although mainly about colour there is
> some info on B&W). Then you could think how to exploit the benefits
> and avoid the problems with your style of photography.  It is very
> likely possible if you want to, of course not for every possible 
style.
> 
> It is not hard to put noise in your skies if you desire.  Nor are
> blown highlights mandatory.  Digital capture is just another tool 
and
> not a bad one (of course film is fine too).  
> 
> For some subjects I can get great resolution from my digital 
cameras 
> (>10k pixel square images or more from a cheap DSLR using panorama
> tools) -better than I ever got from my SL66. Doesn't suit your 
style?
> No problem!  
> 
> What about "combinez" for as much depth of field as with large 
format
> tilting? Too much work?  I'd argue not much more work than it took 
to
> dev a 4x5 sheet in two-bath.   
> 
> Half way through a day the light changes from "Tech Pan"  to "Delta
> 400" - no problem, I can make characteristic curves as I like in the
> raw converter much better than I ever could with mono developers 
etc. 
> Also a mistake does not ruin the "whole film".  
> 
> Want more dynamic range? Well neg film has great dynamic range but
> appalling resolution in the shadows. Easy (in principle) to mimik 
that
> by using noise reduction in the shadows (actually very tricky to get
> it right, I find, but I think that is my lack of competance). Or by
> stacking images (hard though, even for static subjects).
> 
> For me the two real advantages of digital capture are the 30 times 
or
> so better sensitivity to light (OK, not with quite the same
> resolution, yet, a factor of ~2 to go there), and the option to 
choose
> the characterisitic curve.    The former is invaluable on a mountain
> top, the latter helps a lot in many lighting conditions.
> A big disadvantage is initial purchase cost, but it is getting 
there,
> slowly.  
> 
> Great fun and very rewarding.  Not a replacement in all respects.  
> 
> Ken
>






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

    
---------------------------------
  

  



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

OK - all this talk has finally made me look at digital more seriously  
- the thing is i really love B&W - and from what I understand about  
digital you need a good conversion and filter software, 'cause the  
digital images are in color.

And then there is the cost. However, I did go over to B&H and look at  
some of the prices - I'm looking at Canon 'cause I have decent lenses  
- and don't wanna spend to get new sets of lenses.  So, the cost for  
EOS 20D - body only - is about $1200 ---- Are there any reviews out  
there about this camera as used for B&W esp. nature photography,  
including trees, macro (flowers) , landscape? I know I'm asking for  
something quite specific, but for that price, and time I'd invest in  
learning it all... I really would like some more info. on how to  
evaluate the camera.

At the same time it is certainly attractive that I would spend a lot  
less time, developing film, and then scanning 'em --- I could  
certainly take a lot more photographs, experiment more, print  
more.... so lotsa mores.... and features etc. tempting for sure...

Altaf

On Dec 10, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Clayton Jones wrote:

> Hello Pete,
>
>> I would be interested to know if I am talking garbage -- I admit
>> I have limited experience of the subject. I'll stick with film for
>> now -
>
> No, you aren't talking garbage.  Everything you listed is true, but as
> you say, you are speaking with limited digital experience.  Consider
> this: the vast majority (probably in the high 90's %-wise) of film
> photographers who try digital capture don't go back.  There must be a
> reason for that, in spite of all the things you mentioned.
>
> The hardest part of making the transition is accepting/realizing that
> digital sensors are not an electrical version of film.  I went through
> a mourning period where I tried unsuccessfully to make my images look
> like the Tri-X I loved for years.  I finally understood that I was
> dealing with a completely different medium, so I stopped trying to
> make it be something else and began learning how to use it.  What I
> think all serious photographers have found is that there are
> workarounds for the things you discussed.  Film has certain advantages
> over digital, but the reverse is also true.
>
> It isn't the same as film.  Once you accept that, a whole new
> wonderful world opens up.  An analogy might be a painter who switches
> from acrylic to oil, or vice-versa.  This isn't meant to change your
> mind.  I think you should continue as you are.  When the time is right
> it will be compelling in its own unique way for you, and it won't be a
> decision to be made.  You'll just want to do it.
>
>
> Regards,
> Clayton
>
>
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- 
> ~-->
> Life without art & music? Keep the arts alive today at Network for  
> Good!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/7zgKlB/dnQLAA/Zx0JAA/ucIolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you  
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by  
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines”  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just to throw something else into the debate, thought everyone might be 
interested in this

http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_15986,294,p2.html

Regards
Gareth