Digital BW, The Print

Alan,

I think that it is largely an artistic choice at this point. (Or economic if
you are shooting pro!) I have seen excellent prints from digital cameras and
from scanned film. They have a different character though and some may
prefer one over the other.

I do most of my "serious" work with 4x5 and 6x7 film cameras but I would be
happy to add a Canon D10 to my 35mm Canon bodies.

You don't mention it in your test below but I assume it was all done in
color. It would be interesting to repeat this experiment shooting a medium
speed B&W negative film (TMax 100 or FP4) and converting the camera file to
B&W (or shoot in B&W mode if that is an option). Finally make a print from
both workflows and see what you get. After all the print is the real test. I
suspect they will both be good but not the same.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "A. Huntley" <leicam6@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] digital


> Keith/Anthony/et al,
>
> I have read over and over, again, these endless posts regarding digital
vs.
> film but have never felt the need to jump into the fray. No more! I'll
> probably get flamed heavily for the following, but it's in Jerry O's
spirit
> that I offer my two cents...FWIW...
>
> I currently have and use a Canon D30 with a small cadre of lenses. BTW, I
> own only one "L" series piece of glass. My primary 35mm film camera has
been
> the Nikon F4, all f/2.8 lenses (i.e., pro-level), for many years.
Recently,
> I was considering whether to upgrade my DSLR to the new Canon 10D and get
a
> couple of more Canon lenses, or buy a 35mm film scanner. As I said, I have
> read the many posts stating "digital cannot possibly match scanned film
> (even from the cheapest scanners)", that "digital (even the lowly D30)
> surpassed 35mm scanned film", etc. I have read many pages on the web
related
> specifically to this topic. But, and this is a BIG but, I had never
actually
> done a direct comparison for myself. I should mention that I scan MF / LF
on
> a Epson Expression 1680, and have compared these scans to my D30 images,
and
> have a couple of opinions here, but I leave those for another day.
>
> The setup: I loaded my Nikon F4 with a roll of what is considered to be
one
> of the best transparency films available (I won't mention which one
because
> someone will say that I didn't use the "right" film!), clicked on my
> 35-70/2.8, grabbed the tripod and my D30 and headed off early one morning
to
> my favorite local area of the desert. The desert was in bloom so there was
> color everywhere! Every subject that I recorded on film I also recorded
with
> the D30. I had the film processed by a local professional lab, picked an
> image to work with, and sent it to West Coast Imaging to have a Tango drum
> scan (100MB) done. I picked WCI because of their reputation and the fact
> that photographers of the caliber of Robert Glenn Ketchum use them. I
> anxiously awaited the CD to come back from WCI. I thought to myself, how
> could a 17MB file from the D30 possibly hold up--even in the slightest
> way--to 100MB's worth of data from a clean, sharp, well exposed, drum
> scanned transparency?
>
> Upon receiving the scanned image I opened it in their default color space
> (PS 7.0.1) and set viewing to 100% pixel level. Then I opened the same
> subject taken with my D30 (Adobe color space) and set that image to 100%
> viewing. In side-by-side comparisons I found the following:
>
> 1. Sharpness - absolutely no contest. The D30 image was significantly
> sharper than scanned film.
> 2. Resolution - again, no contest here either. The D30 image clearly
> revealed finer details.
> 3. Grain - The scanned film showed obvious grain--resulting in reduced
edge
> definition, too--where the D30 was just about "grain" (noise) free.
> 4. Smoothness of tonality and colors - I preferred the D30 image probably
> because the lack of "grain" just made it look "cleaner" and, therefore,
> richer and more pleasing to look at.
>
> BTW, I should also mention that the Canon lens used on the D30 was the
> consumer level 28-135 IS zoom. Not reported to be one of Canon's best. I
> would expect even better results from the D30 using "L" series glass.
>
> Bottom line...I'm now fully convinced that the D30, in particular, and I'm
> sure any of the most recent DSLR offerings from Canon/Nikon/Fuji, clearly
> blows away 35mm film scanned on ANY scanner for prints up to 13x19. Can
the
> same conclusions be drawn for larger prints? Don't know...don't care.
Super
> B size is the largest that I ever print. Therefore, if Micheal Riechmann
> says that the Canon 1Ds compares favorably with MF so be it! Others of
> respected opinions have stated the same. If I could afford the 1Ds, I'd
get
> one in a heartbeat. But, I'll probably have to wait for a more prosumer
> level full-frame digital camera at a more reasonable cost. Are you
listening
> Canon?
>
> As I said...just my two cents...flame retardant suit in place. Let the
games
> begin.................
>
> Alan Huntley
(snip earlier)