Digital BW, The Print

Blah Blah Blah..

This entire "digital vs film" issue is essentially ridiculous in many 
ways...

I use both film and digital at ALL steps of my work from initial image 
capture to final display..

Digital is great when I need to check lighting levels, want instant 
feedback, or need quick turnaround....

CAN I create good full frame 13x19s that compare to conventional film 
13x19s.. Sure..  But I can also create 13x19s with a 35mm and  low ISO 
color negative film that compare to higher ISO transparency film MF 
images printed at the same size..

And what does that prove?

That "under controlled circumstances, using a competition weighted to 
the advantages of one system/workflow I can surpass or beat the quality 
of what is theoretically a superior system"...  And, that means that 
digital ":blows away film at 35mm"?  That's like saying that if I take 
the world's best Olympic decathlon competitor that the 30th place 
Olympic finisher in pole vault can beat him/her in a pole vault 
competition and therefore my decathlete is blown away as an athlete by 
the pole vault competitor..

I'll just list a few issues here..

1)    d30 vs film: flaws in the comparative methodology Alan used..

A)    Transparency film is closest to the exposure latitude of  digital 
- so that choice automatically weights the entire comparison in favor of 
digital.  One of the advantages of film is that even with slides (and 
significantly more so with color neg., not to mention there is not a 
fair comparison between the HUGE latitude in  B&W neg. and digital) film 
GENERALLY has a wider inherent latitude.. Want to really compare B&W 
film to your D30 digital?  (After all, this IS a DIGITAL BLACK & WHITE 
list.)  Then start with a good B&W negative on a film shot at the ISO 
for which it is designed, scan it at 16 bit @ 4000 dpi or higher with a 
pro scanner,  then compare it to a B&W created by conversion from a D30 
digital.  Whether or not YOU see onscreen or use in a direct print  all 
the info in the scan isn't the point..  The strength of film here is the 
wider tonal range ISO to ISO..

B)    Since we're discussing ISO let's discuss it further..  How does 
your D30 do at 25 or 6400 ISO...?  Oh, right it doesn't shoot at those 
speeds... Silly me..  Unfortunately, film does.. We have films that do..

C)    ISO again..  You didn't mention what ISO you shot at..  I'm 
guessing it was between 200 and 400... Why? That's where digital images 
will look the best..  That's all well and good if I have control over my 
lighting and can pick and choose ISO, assuring I shoot in that range.. 
 BUT, compare a 1600 ISO film image on pro neg. to a 1600 ISO image from 
the D30.. The noise on the D30 image is just ridiculous compared to a 
well exposed 1600 ISO B&W negative of a film designed for that speed..

D)    Noise vs grain: "which a viewer prefers"..  This is so subjective 
as to be idiotic...  It's like saying someone likes watercolors better 
than pastels..  Nice observations, but hardly an objective criterion.

E)    Lens multipliers...  The D30 has a 1.6 lens multiplier.. That may 
be nice for shooting long.. But try shooting with a field of view 
equivalent to 20mm... Happen to have that 12.5 mm lens handy?  NO SLR 
that has a lens multiplier is comparable here..  Why? Lenses for 35 mm 
have decades of development for that format..  Come back with a full 
frame comparison..

F)    Resolution vs apparent resolution.  Whatever your eye sees 
onscreen, the fact is that a high resolution scan of a properly exposed 
LOW ISO film image will have more actual resolution...  People here seem 
to equate sharpness or clarity to resolution.  IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.. 
 What you see onscreen tends to be the greater apparent acutance of 
digital.. Big deal, NOT!  There have always been ways of developing 
films to enhance acutance or apparent sharpness in B&W wet darkroom 
work.. I can "sharpen" in PShop an image to make it "look" better.  That 
doesn't mean the image itself was sharper..  Digital captures are 
weighted towards higher acutance (it helps make up for lower 
resolutions), so, in your case, this is another false comparison.. -- 
This item is very close to the idiocy of those who check for 
over-sharpening at a 100% onscreen resolution.. In MANY cases what is 
over-sharpening at that level looks better on a final print (and doesn't 
belie any over-sharpening) than a perfectly sharpened image...  C'mon 
we've known that in digital printing, especially in magazine work, for 
aeons.. It's irrelevant to which image or original is better..

G)    More resolution issues... The D30 has an effective pixel 
resolution of 2160 x  1460... Even a 4000 dpi scan of 35 mm is about 
6000 x 4000 pixels..  Onscreen the images when sized to fit may look the 
same or digital may win..  You certainly can make great 13x19 digital 
prints from the D30 images.  But what happens if I need to do 
significant cropping?  Then film really surpasses digital (for the time 
being -- and let's not even compare this to MF).  The fact is, magazine 
imagery in particular is more highly cropped and edited.  Advantage is 
still with film here.. (and lets not EVEN get into the fact that the 
best scans don't approach the full resolution of fine-grained B&W 
films... if we really want simply the best resolution we'd all simply 
shoot MF fine-grained B&W, but choices aren't so simple either)

H)    Resolution again..  The way you compare is weighted towards 
digital again..  Choose the same area of an image and compare..

I)    Tonal range again.. Even a top level scanner generally needs a 
high end and low end (in the sense of histograms or levels) scan to 
gather anywhere near the available info from a good color neg., much 
less a B&W one...  Does that mean the D30 print will not "look" better 
in a final print?  Certainly not...  If you expose perfectly, a D30 can 
give you a mush faster workflow through to that image.  However, all the 
info you don't have in that D30 image is simply not available if you 
need to do serious dodging and burning etc.. The fact that film gives 
you data that is beyond the contrast/tonal range of prints is a BIG 
advantage..  That means I can reclaim and emphasize detail (especially 
with a two or more scans)  that a 100% digital workflow still cannot 
hope to match (again, for the time being).

J)    Density.. Film gets denser than good scans can capture in a single 
scan.. Fact of life.. You axiomatically throw away data then.. So, if a 
two scan  image has more data than a digital capture add inthe missing 
unscanned data and the comparison is just not even worth talking about.

K)    More film choice issues: to clearly understand the point, let's go 
to an extreme... Loaded the D30 up with a roll of Kodak HIE?  OOps, it 
won't fit.. Can you make pseudo HIE B&W IR images (esp if you start with 
false colour IR images) with a D30...? Sure... Will they have ALL  the 
same qualities of HIE...?  Not a chance..  So, does digital look the 
same as TriX, APX25, TechPan,  the "looks" of each are different..  With 
a film camera I do have more choices to begin with though..  

L)    To illustrate the real issues more clearly think of it this way.. 
Can a D30 image be made into a better 800 x 600 JPG image than that from 
film.. ? Sure... But you've thrown away a ton of data in that process.. 
and NOW you'd compare the 800 x 600 images and pronounce digital the 
winner?  No-one would do that and call it a relevant comparison..

M)    Continuing that line... At 9 x 12 Olympus E10 color prints done 
with a dye-sub or better quality inkjet can beat traditional SLR film 
images in apparent sharpness, color saturation, clarity, resolution, 
etc.. AND?  I guess that's ok if I always print that way..

N)    Need I mention here that the sRGB color space of a D30 is almost 
automatically going to look better onscreen unmanipulated as compared to 
a similar scanned image?  If you don't understand why (the realities of 
color spaces used by monitors), you shouldn't even be trying a 
controlled comparison unless you are trying to engage in selective 
perception to selectively reinforce a purchasing decision you've already 
made..

I could list the areas digital has an advantage in, but for the sake of 
limiting this tome, I've restricted myself to exposing a FEW of the 
flaws in your comparison..

Now, all this said... I use digital and film..

I use 100% digital workflows... I use hybrid workflows where I scan film 
and print digitally.. I still do some 100% analog (wet darkroom) 
printing..  Others have made conventional silver prints from digital 
image captures.... Each workflow has advantages for particular situations..

For many working event  photogs and newspaper Photo-js, digital is a 
clear winner..

For ultra anal fine-arts photogs film still wins hands down for the 
initial imaging..

In the interstices between those extremes the choice of digital vs film 
is still one of toolsets...

Neither approach objectively and  inherently "blows away" the other...

Can I make a great statue of a bear from a log using a chain saw? Yes... 
(OK, I can't but others do)

Can I make a great image with a Holga..? Definitely...

Can I make great 4 x 6s with a Sinar 8 x10..? I guess so..

Can I make a better image at 12 x 18 or 13 x 19 of a particular image 
with a D30 than I can with an image shot on film by an F4 or F5?  Sure, 
in the right circumstances..

Do I use digital in some circumstances over film? Yes

Will I be buying a Nikon full-frame SLR this Fall and shooting more 
digital than I now do?  Sure..

Will it replace film for more of my uses..? Sure..

Does that mean digital "blows away" film..?  Umm... Nope, to say so 
would only demonstrate my inherent ignorance of film, digital, and all 
the factors involved in making my choice of tool..

Tools simply aren't the same...  Pastels create different images than 
oils.. Digital and film will create different images (and yes, one can 
make them look similar, just as one can make media in painting look 
similar -- but that's a false comparison)..

This debate (for the time being) is still like a Mac vs PC debate... 
It's an issue of toolset, subjective preferences, and needs.. Neither is 
a clear winner in all ways under all circumstances...

One final note as to why I think this debate is inherently silly..

I can take a Holga and shoot images of the same scene as a less skilled 
amateur using the best all automatic SLR... Hand over the images to a 
3rd party who is skilled in PhotoShop and that 3rd party might well 
create better final images from my Holga shots... Why?  Because ART is 
not about simply choosing the tool that is objectively "best".. If that 
were so, the people with the most money to spend on materials (in 
traditional arts) or cameras (in photo)  would produce the best 
imagery...  That's simply not the case, as we all know..  This is ART 
not some objectified documentary holographic data capture meant to 
exactly replicate the real world.. It's about emotion, expression, and 
vision...

I don't give a rat's ass if someone can produce the highest resolution 
comparative images possible or the most technically perfect negatives.. 
 Those kind of comparisons are the retreat of mediocre artists who may 
be skilled technicians.. (the kind of people who crete images that are 
technical opuses, but which never touch the souls of anyone - including 
in many cases them - which I believe is why some choose this excessive 
focus on tool) The only real measure in the end as an artist is how your 
art is received by others and how you feel about it yourself.. Stop 
believing that technique or tool is the supreme determinant of the 
success or failure of your images.. It isn't and never will be for 
images that are "art."  AND what image that is not a holographic perfect 
representation of reality is NOT in the final analysis art..?

To close, I'll again recommend looking at some of Jerry Olson's images 
at <http://www.westernechoes.com>.  If he had used a more objectively 
"perfect" imaging solution would the images have had more passion, more 
soul, or spoken more loudly to the spirit?  I think not..  Because, in 
the end, that art was, even with Jerry's obsessive focus upon the 
highest dMax, more about the artist and what he imparted to the images, 
what we could feel from them, than it ever was about the highest dMax or 
the best initial in-camera image..

Tools can give us greater or lesser ranges of or options for expression 
in our art. But, art isn't about cold sterile bits, bytes, or numerical 
values.. If it was, computers would have replace artists as they have 
most book-keepers or type-setters..

Art is not about dpi and resolution when it all is said and done.. Take 
joy in making imagery. Take joy in your art... But please try and always 
remember that we create art to  express ourselves, to illuminate a chord 
within ourselves and the greater world, to reach out across the walls 
that always divide beings who come into this world and leave it isolated 
and alone, and touch the souls of others from within that space we each 
inhabit..

I hope each of us can step back an use Jerry's imagery and his own 
examples of endless debate on the "best" technical option to understand 
that very real fact.. While Jerry would debate endlessly and always 
wanted better options as a route to express himself, the lack of the 
"perfect" option makes his images no less stunning.  When all is said 
and done, Jerry's images were great for what they are imbued with and 
transmit of the artist's soul.

I only wish that I had the opportunity or "balls" to say that before his 
passage...
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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