Digital BW, The Print

On 5/28/02 2:20 AM, "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...> wrote:

> I've thought seriously about getting the Nikon D100 with its 6.3
> interpolated megapixels (2.1 real megapixels), but in the end I still come
> back to the incontrovertible fact that from my Nikon F100, Provia 100F, and
> Nikon LS4000 I get 24 real megapixels (unless Austin tells me I'm making a
> miscalculation somewhere)!
> 
> Prosumer digital cameras are not even in the same ballpark yet - they are
> still an order of magnitude away.
> 
That basically sums it up.  For a 8x10...it doesn't make a big
difference...for a 20x24...its the difference between being able to do it or
not...then there is a lot of "gray area" in between (11 x 14, 16 x 20).  The
choice really comes down to how you shoot.  If you shoot a lot the cost and
time saving of digital is simply incredible...if you shoot a roll a week
then its not a big deal...well let's think about it...$5 for film...$10 (or
an evening) for processing...another evening to do test scans...$50 for a
drum scan...hmmm...times 52.  Now you can add it up differently...two
evenings plus $10K for an Imacon gets rid of the evening of test scans and
the $50 for the drum scan.  The bottom line is if time or money is
precious...AND...you don't want to print bigger a D100 (or D60 or D1x...what
I have) can't be beat.  In my workflow I need to shoot about 100 rolls to
justify the $3K it costs to upgrade each year and a half.  With the digital
I spend less time, shoot more, and get to look at many more images on my
screen...but it doesn't replace your medium format film under any
conditions.

The other reason to go digital involves what you shoot and for whom...but
that's another story (e.g., photojournalism, sports photography, theater or
film stills, weddings).  If you need it fast...the lighting is really weird
or unpredictable...or your head will roll if you don't get the shot and you
can't shoot it again...digital can't be beat.

I had a job last winter where I was shooting some experimental theatre.  Had
to shoot with the stage light including during a performance from a tech
booth.  I shot film with a F100 and digital with my D1x.  I got nothing from
my film camera and 100 take home images from my D1x.  The difference was
being able to look at histograms and previews immediately.  The
matrix/center/spot metering was way off.  There was no way to use a light
meter for much of the shooting.  Shooting digital it turned out was the
difference between getting a magazine cover...and not.  If you shoot a roll
of landscape every couple of weeks with a 4x5...why are you reading
this?...ha ha...ah...maybe its because you in front of your computer
scanning.

Robert