Digital BW, The Print

My original answer was CHOICE, which, thus far has been supported by 
all agruments presented. All digital SLR's of today are a better choice 
than than 35mm for color. UNLESS you want to shoot without batteries, 
then a mechanical SLR is a better choice with film. On a "per click" 
basis, it's still cheaper and better than 35mm chromes.

People used to argue that their Hasselblads could be kept for 20 years 
and sold for more thatn the new purchased price. My argument was 
inflation and the "perpetual lease payment" that was being made called 
"film."

So if you boil it down to a "per click" basis, it's the great equalizer.

In a similar fashion to the Pro Film arguments presented here, the 
CHOICE would be clear. If I were off to a remote mountain with no 
electricity, I would choose Copal shutters on my LF optics with Film. 
Digital capture? Forgetaboutit.

But, where you have access to AC power, in the COMMERCIAL world, which 
I distinctly said, as a specific qualifier of my statments, there are 
digital solutions that make more sense.

As to the cost of all my digital cameras over the years (cost me a few 
houses), I usually buy twin cameras. The only consumable left in the 
digital world is....mechanical shutters, along with fast obsolescence 
of support (which film cameras do NOT suffer from). But, when one earns 
a living selling pixels, the next newermorebetter model/Ebay the last 
year's makes more economic sense than wating for shutter failure and 
looking at a repair bill that is 20% of a new camera. The cost per 
click remains the same or less while the quality/versatility improves 
with each generation...............or you can make 30x40's from LF film 
scans with carbon inks (which I have done also).

I have made my money, primarily, in the event photography business, on 
Kodak dye sublimation printers. Selling 2,000 to 5,000 small prints a 
day from 10 Kodak 8650's in 5 installations will pay off Five $6,000, 
1.5 megapixal cameras in a hurry. It is the antithesis of most of what 
is done here. This "fine art" stuff I reserve for myself and typically 
do not sell. I do give it to friends as gifts.

My opinion? It's ALL good when you make the choice appropriate to the 
task.

Claude



Message: 18
   Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 03:58:28 -0000

   From: "rplojetz" <rplojetz@...>
Subject: Re: Digital vs. Film: the ANSWER

I am not saying that film is superior to digital or vis a versa, all
I am saying is that application is important in choosing the tool. It
could be that digital is what you need or it could be that film is
better. On the pure art side of it there is great work being done
with pinhole cameras these days. But it works as the right tool for
the final print as they see it and the effect can't be replicated
with a lens. It's a black and white forum, so my argument extends
specifically towards that and I am not trying to argue specifically
that 8x10 cameras are the way to go.

On the topic of economics as an argument against film though, you say
you are on your 35th camera in 20 years, ouch but that sounds damn
expensive, 7 months per camera?

As for the digital memory argument I wasn't referring to 8x10 negs, I
was referring to 35mm in comparison. Sorry about the confusion,i
assumed that when i said 36 exposures it would be obvious that i was
talking about 35mm.