Digital BW, The Print

On 9/6/02 11:20 AM, "wangalb" <leica_phile@...> wrote:

>> The problem is, Jerry, you are then letting output get in the way
>> of judging
>> the actual file.
> 
> Actually that's the only thing that counts. I've been lousy prints
> done from Leica/Contax shots. People in a gallery are going to judge
> you on whether you walk the walk but not talk the talk.

Both things count...if you want flexibility.  I find it easier to judge 8x10
proofs and hi rez monitor views...together this gives me a good idea of what
prints are going to look like large.  Judging just a small proof alone
doesn't give me the whole story.

> Also, depending on your output size 600 percent (6x loupe)
>> may be just the right comparison...remember 1x on a monitor is only
> 72dpi.
> 
> The monitor is the lousiest way to judge your final print. You have
> to print it out on a real printer to judge whether you did a good job
> or not.

I disagree...as stated above.

>> Honestly, I haven't met anyone who does BW work other than you who
>>  thinks
>> digital shooting is better than film...with respect to
>> detail/resolution.


> Actually I know a lot of people who do BW work that like digital
> shooting better. 

Yeah, but they are wrong, ha ha.

> Some of them are PJ's as well but it's the perceived
> detail/resolution and not the actual detail/resolution which the
> average viewer is going to look for.
> 
> application)...but we


For PJ digital rocks...no contest...but its about making sure you have the
shot and getting it out fast...that's why it wins...not image quality.  I'm
not sure what perceived detail/resolution means.  All I know is that when I
look at a 35mm 6mp digital file blown up to 24x36 it is no contest in any
respect to a 35mm neg.  Personally I find the same thing for anything 16x20
or above.  Depends on the image for 11x14...sometimes the digital files are
equal.  For 8x10 it is often a tie.

>> know that we aren't getting the same amount of information and that
> our
>> options will be limited.
> 
> Agreed. Scanning film is still superior to shooting digital. However,
> digital shooting in street photography is glorious experience by far
> but it doesn't beat a Leica M6/M7 yet :) IMHO!

The biggest problem for digital in street photography is the clunky, loud,
and power hungry SLR's and the lack of good lens options and pixels for the
small cameras.

>> story...particularly when you get larger than about 11x14...I agree
> the
>> prints are sharper.
>> 
> And also when you're shooting Leica or Contax equipment. Using Nikon
> or Canon zoom lenses isn't going to be mean too much relative to
> primes. 

It does for me...speed of lenses.

> What equipment you use does matter there in terms of final
> resolution. Those lenses approach MF quality especially when you're
> getting up to 11 by 14 and beyond.

A 6x7 neg with a decent camera blows away 35mm even with good lenses...when
you are going large...its simply a 4 times larger neg.

> I'm willing to bet that a Leica M6
> plus Hexanon-M will win over the Canon EOS D-60 plus 28-135 zoom any
> day :> even at smaller sizes like 8 by 10's.

Absolutely!

Robert