Digital BW, The Print

The depth of field characteristics is a function of the focal length and 
aperture - independent of the film/sensor format. However, the coverage 
on the sensor angle is dependent of the film/sensor format. The smaller 
a sensor, the shorter the focal length to that will be a "normal lens" 
what ever you want normal to mean but it usually means the diagonal of 
the image area is equal to the focal length. One of the issues I have 
with the small sensor is it is very difficult to get any creative 
control on the depth of field unless you go so long relative to the 
sensor size it becomes unmanageable.

The 35 mm format is marginal when it comes to creative depth of field 
control. The medium format is much better and of course the view camera 
is the best with it's movements and long normal lens. So that's the 
reason that I am waiting for awhile before I consider digital for 
anything more than a P&S vacation camera. If I were a newspaper 
photographer I would probably think otherwise - but now there is a 
photographer down in Miami under a little bit heat with some  lawyers 
demanding to see his negative of the photo he took during the Kentucky 
Derby - a negative he can't produce because it was taken with a digital.

Truman



Seth Rossman wrote:

>Take a gander over to the D1 list.  WHY spend $4000 on a 300 2.8, when the
>80-200 now does the job?  Why spend $7000+ on a 400 2.8, when the 300 2.8
>works.
>
>If it's any clue, read the specs on the new 12-24G.  The COI is made for the
>current CCD. It will not work on film cameras --except as an artsy lens. 
>
>As one person over there also pointed out, it's not the size or shape of the
>CCD that is now as important, it's the quality and resolution they are
>concentrating on.  Canon is doing the same thing.
>
>Think of it as: 120 comes in this size, 35mm comes in this size, and digital
>comes in this size.  The D series - either Nikon or Canon, is NOT 35mm.
>They are working bodies adapted to digital.
>
>Seth
>
>  
>

Seth writes:

> Think of it as: 120 comes in this size, 35mm
> comes in this size, and digital
> comes in this size.  The D series - either Nikon
> or Canon, is NOT 35mm. They are working bodies
> adapted to digital.

They are not adapted to digital; they are adapted to a small frame size.
Kind of like ... APS.

There's no fixed link between frame size and digital or film.

I wonder whether these special lenses are a tacit admission that full-frame
35mm digital is technically difficult right now, or just a covert effort to
force digital photographers to buy a completely new set of lenses just to
accommodate the smaller image size.

Either way, it's bad enough when one must drop thousands just to buy the
camera body; now one must buy all new lenses, too!  Every day, digital
photography looks more and more like the "upgrade each month" syndrome that
has afflicted the computer world for decades.  Great for manufacturers, but
very, very grim news for photographers.

Truman writes:

> ... but now there is a photographer down in Miami
> under a little bit heat with some  lawyers demanding
> to see his negative of the photo he took during
> the Kentucky Derby - a negative he can't produce
> because it was taken with a digital.

Can you point to some further information on this?  I had not heard about
it.

You are right, but we're stuck!

My first hard drive was a 10MB boat anchor that sold for $1300.  Since I had
a friend in the business, I got it for $900 --back in the 80's when that was
a lot.  Nature of the beast.

I was getting my D1 ready to sell for $1200 and found my original invoice in
the box at $4499. What can we do?  Back then I was told, "go digital or
don't work."  So I did, and they cut back!!

Anyway, be ready to leave that F4/F5 three-to-four year cycle behind.
Prepare for an 18 month change.

(Anyone want a Hasselblad or F100?)

Seth

=
=Either way, it's bad enough when one must drop thousands just 
=to buy the camera body; now one must buy all new lenses, too!  
=Every day, digital photography looks more and more like the 
="upgrade each month" syndrome that has afflicted the computer 
=world for decades.  Great for manufacturers, but very, very 
=grim news for photographers.
=

I think that was settled yesterday.  The blow-up showed the jockey did not
have anything else in his hand.  It was the glasses of the jockey behind him
that looked that way from lens compressing the perspective.

Seth

=
=Truman writes:
=
=> ... but now there is a photographer down in Miami
=> under a little bit heat with some  lawyers demanding
=> to see his negative of the photo he took during
=> the Kentucky Derby - a negative he can't produce
=> because it was taken with a digital.
=
=Can you point to some further information on this?  I had not 
=heard about it.
=
=

Seth writes:

> You are right, but we're stuck!

Those of us who shoot digital are stuck; not those of us who shoot film.

I paid my dues in endless, useless, expensive upgrades for years in
computerland.  I don't plan to make the same mistake in photography.  Let
someone else be the golden goose for the camera manufacturers now.  I just
want to take pictures.

Indeed, if anything, film photography should be exceptionally stable now.
Hopefully Nikon will continue to sell the F5 indefinitely, and ditto for
other film camera manufacturers.  I wouldn't mind continuing lens
improvements, but the existing bodies are fine; ideally I can just buy new
ones identical to the old ones if the old ones ever wear out.

> My first hard drive was a 10MB boat anchor
> that sold for $1300.

I recall 3 MB drives that cost $3500 or so.  Never used one myself.

> I was getting my D1 ready to sell for $1200 and
> found my original invoice in the box at $4499.
> What can we do?

Shoot film.

> Back then I was told, "go digital or
> don't work."  So I did, and they cut back!!

What kind of photography are you doing?

> Anyway, be ready to leave that F4/F5 three-to-four
> year cycle behind.  Prepare for an 18 month change.

No, I plan to just keep the F5.  In fact, if anything, I've been moving
towards simpler, more manual bodies in recent years.  After all, all I need
is an accurate shutter and a light-proof box.

I have no idea what this is about.  What happened?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Rossman" <seth@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 00:33
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] RE: a full-frame Nikon digital SLR this fall? (was
Re: [DigitalBW] digital)


> I think that was settled yesterday.  The blow-up showed the jockey did not
> have anything else in his hand.  It was the glasses of the jockey behind
him
> that looked that way from lens compressing the perspective.
>
> Seth
>
> =
> =Truman writes:
> =
> => ... but now there is a photographer down in Miami
> => under a little bit heat with some  lawyers demanding
> => to see his negative of the photo he took during
> => the Kentucky Derby - a negative he can't produce
> => because it was taken with a digital.
> =
> =Can you point to some further information on this?  I had not
> =heard about it.
> =
> =
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Seth Rossman wrote:

>Take a gander over to the D1 list.  WHY spend $4000 on a 300 2.8, when the
>80-200 now does the job?  Why spend $7000+ on a 400 2.8, when the 300 2.8
>works.
>  
>
Try getting a field of view equivalent to a 20mm in 35mm format?  

You need a 12.5 mm rectilinear... Seen a lot of those around?

Suddenly I have people idiotically touting digital's multiplier as a plus?

Yeah, there's a lot of photo-j and landscape work done with a 400 2.8 
huh? Sorry, the only people who benefit are sports and nature/animal 
photogs...  I'm a sports photog at base, but I bought 300 2.8 and 400 
2.8 lenses or rented them when needed.

Why do you think Canon users are so happy to see full-frame EOS Digital 
bodies?

If Nikon chooses not to go full-frame digital (and I have heard that 
they WILL be offering one this fall - you really don't believe they 
would license to a full-frame Kodak body, the DCS 14n,  if they weren't 
bringing out one on their own?) then I'll simply buy a DCS 14n or 
whatever else..  Nikon loses the sales..  They keep that up, they might 
as well just become a lens maker..

I use Nikon gear, but it seems like Nikon is institutionally unable to 
react to a fast-changing market... If they don't come out with a 
full-frame offering they might as well focus on the consumer market and 
forget about pros.  Nikon blew it similarly on fast auto-focus in the 
early 90's, and saw how the loss of pros quickly affected Nikon's 
consumer sales.. Canon ended up converting a huge number of Nikon pros 
simply because the Nikon auto-focus was useless for sports when compared 
to Canon's offerings..  If they want to replicate the same mistake again 
and find themselves with dwindling market share,. so be it..  I'll 
simply move to Canon then..  Brand loyalty to Nikon is fine, but I'm NOT 
about to commit financial hara kiri to remain brand loyal..  If I'm 
going to buy all new glass to support digital, I'll go with Canon.. Why? 
 Because Nikon has for years told us it promised future interoperability 
of it's lens offerings with its bodies.  They marketed the fact that we 
could use all our old Nikon glass with the newest bodies, and often, 
vice versa..  Now, we need to extremely expensive newly designed wide 
angle optics to use digital?  Be realistic..  It's unsustainable as 
corporate policy AND is hypocrisy given Nikon's longtime profession of 
future interoperability..

 
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]

A Miami Herald photographer blew up one of his shots and published it 
"claiming" it showed a electronic prodding device in the hand of the 
jockey who won the Ky Derby. This caused an investigation and of course 
since the photo and blowup made the front page of the Thoroughbred Times 
and Miami Herald it caused quite a stir. The Ky racing commission 
searched the track dragging it with rakes to see if it had been 
discarded. They searched the winners circle and other areas. They looked 
at every picture they had of the race. When they asked for the negative 
from the Miami Herald, it could not be produced.

The Jockey was cleared since there was no evidence. They concluded the 
photo was an "optical illusion". Today an article in the TB Times (my 
wife reads it every day) states that the Jockey's lawyer had started the 
legal proces to get all the data associated with the image. Since a 
negative was not produced - there is no evidence that the image was real 
or not.  It didn't sound like the trainer, jockey or owners of the horse 
thought the last week was very funny and it didn't sound like they were 
going to let it drop.

Truman

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>I have no idea what this is about.  What happened?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Seth Rossman" <seth@...>
>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 00:33
>Subject: RE: [Digital BW] RE: a full-frame Nikon digital SLR this fall? (was
>Re: [DigitalBW] digital)
>
>
>  
>
>>I think that was settled yesterday.  The blow-up showed the jockey did not
>>have anything else in his hand.  It was the glasses of the jockey behind
>>    
>>
>him
>  
>
>>that looked that way from lens compressing the perspective.
>>
>>Seth
>>
>>=
>>=Truman writes:
>>=
>>=> ... but now there is a photographer down in Miami
>>=> under a little bit heat with some  lawyers demanding
>>=> to see his negative of the photo he took during
>>=> the Kentucky Derby - a negative he can't produce
>>=> because it was taken with a digital.
>>=
>>=Can you point to some further information on this?  I had not
>>=heard about it.
>>=
>>=
>>
>>
>>
>>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
>>    
>>
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>  
>
>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>
>>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>>    
>>
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
>  
>
>>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>>- Include your full name with your message.
>>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>>    
>>
>them short.
>  
>
>>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
>>    
>>
>&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
>  
>
>>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>>    
>>
>resources on the homepage.
>  
>
>>
>>
>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 
>
>
> 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>
>
>  
>



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Seth writes:
> 
> > You are right, but we're stuck!
> 
> Those of us who shoot digital are stuck; not those of us who shoot 
film.

Speak for yourself.    Digital has many advantages over film.   No 
film, for one thing.   That means no worries about x-rays when 
traveling, no developing costs, instant feedback, no grain or dust or 
scratches, WYSIWYG because you don't have to go from negative to 
positive to see your results, etc.

Still, I shoot mostly film and I have 3 Nikon bodies and about a 
dozen lenses.   I use an Olympus digicam for studio test shots.  I 
would LOVE to go all-digital but I don't like the 1.6X cropping 
factor and no decent wide-angle lenses and too much DOF of Nikon's 
tiny sensors.  On the other hand replacing my lens collection with 
Canons would cost a bloody fortune.   So I'm really pissed that Nikon 
is being so secretive and stubborn about this.

Keith writes:

> Nikon blew it similarly on fast auto-focus in the
> early 90's, and saw how the loss of pros quickly
> affected Nikon's consumer sales.

They must have recovered, because I see pros using mostly Nikons around here
these days (digital and film).

Also, the F5 has just about the fastest AF around these days.

However, I won't be considering future investment in Nikon digital gear if
it requires buying a new set of lenses.  I won't be led down that path,
sorry.

Actually, though, I think Nikon is just blowing smoke to hide something that
they are working on right now.  I hope I'm right, for their sake and mine.

Peter writes:

> Speak for yourself.

That is my usual practice.

> Digital has many advantages over film.

And many disadvantages as well.  I won't list them for the millionth time,
however.

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>Keith writes:
>
>  
>
>>Nikon blew it similarly on fast auto-focus in the
>>early 90's, and saw how the loss of pros quickly
>>affected Nikon's consumer sales.
>>    
>>
>
>They must have recovered, because I see pros using mostly Nikons around here
>these days (digital and film).
>  
>
yes, they did recover, but not fully...

The big help was the Silent_Wave lenses (offering a 300 and 400 with an 
internal motor)...

The point is they sat on their fat tushes until they got outmaneuvered 
by Canon...

We went from sidelines and endzones with legions of Black Nikon lenses 
to the same dominated by White Large Canon glass..

I watched NY Times pros sell all their own personal Nikon gear and 
replace it with Canon gear.. Some switched back, others didn't..

But that's not the point, I never left Nikon myself.. My point is that 
they can't allow a whole market segment to go again..

>Also, the F5 has just about the fastest AF around these days.
>  
>
No question, and I use F5s and N90s exclusively.. (Except for remote 
cameras - I still prefer a hefty F4 for that)

>However, I won't be considering future investment in Nikon digital gear if
>it requires buying a new set of lenses.  I won't be led down that path,
>sorry.
>  
>
My point exactly..

>Actually, though, I think Nikon is just blowing smoke to hide something that
>they are working on right now.  I hope I'm right, for their sake and mine.
>
>  
>
Ditto
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]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V. 
Image Service" <editor@p...> wrote:

> But that's not the point, I never left Nikon myself..
> My point is that they can't allow a whole market segment
> to go again..

I agree.   Nikon has got to make a clear commitment to 
what direction they're going or they're going to lose
a lot of credibility.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Peter writes:
> 
> > Speak for yourself.
> 
> That is my usual practice.
> 
> > Digital has many advantages over film.
> 
> And many disadvantages as well.  I won't list them for the 
millionth time,
> however.

Most of the commercial and PJ and stock photographers I know are 
using digital.   Even the studio MF shooters are now going digital 
since the new lines of big format CCD's has started to come out.   
There's already a full-format 645 out.   

There are very few areas where digital still doesn't cut it.  If you 
really need 6x7 or larger you're stuck with film; if you need to do 
long exposures - in excess of a few minutes - film is the way to go.  
If you need full, non-bayesian-artifacted RGB resolution, film still 
has an edge, but it's a very slight one.

But that's about it.  And all of those are corner cases.   Within a 
few years film-shooters will have to buy their film mail-order and do 
their own processing because the market for those things will be too 
small to support local labs and film stores.  Film shooters will be 
like fans of vinyl LP's and tube amplifiers - still around, but 
irrelevant.

Guys,

Can you bring this thread back around to the list topic of B&W digital
printing. Kind of wandering a bit far field here.

Thanks,
Martin Wesley

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



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] RE: a full-frame Nikon digital SLR this fall? (was Re:
[DigitalBW] digital)


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony
> Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> > Peter writes:
> >
> > > Speak for yourself.
> >
> > That is my usual practice.
> >
> > > Digital has many advantages over film.
> >
> > And many disadvantages as well.  I won't list them for the
> millionth time,
> > however.
>
> Most of the commercial and PJ and stock photographers I know are
> using digital.   Even the studio MF shooters are now going digital
> since the new lines of big format CCD's has started to come out.
> There's already a full-format 645 out.
>
> There are very few areas where digital still doesn't cut it.  If you
> really need 6x7 or larger you're stuck with film; if you need to do
> long exposures - in excess of a few minutes - film is the way to go.
> If you need full, non-bayesian-artifacted RGB resolution, film still
> has an edge, but it's a very slight one.
>
> But that's about it.  And all of those are corner cases.   Within a
> few years film-shooters will have to buy their film mail-order and do
> their own processing because the market for those things will be too
> small to support local labs and film stores.  Film shooters will be
> like fans of vinyl LP's and tube amplifiers - still around, but
> irrelevant.
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Every list I'm on seems to get infected with this endless discussion.
Aren't there a myriad of lists just for this topic? Yes it relates to
printing... kinda... barely...
This and the PC vrs Mac debate are good reasons to leave lists.
When you all figure out how to get film into a digital camera, get
back to me...
on the right list.
Thank you,
Tyler, relentlessly disgruntled.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Wesley"
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Guys,
> 
> Can you bring this thread back around to the list topic of B&W digital
> printing. Kind of wandering a bit far field here.

ah Martin...
A true brother

>Actually, though, I think Nikon is just blowing smoke to hide 
>something that they are working on right now.  I hope I'm right, 
>for their sake and mine.

Of course they are.  Digital is still young, and development will
continue in the direction of bigger, better, faster, cheaper.  Do you
think Nikon is shutting down their R&D and saying "Ok, this is where
we park from now on" ?

10 years ago PC Ram cost $40/mg and you had to mortgage your house to
get a 100mg hard drive.  Today I can buy 512mg for $65 and 80g for
$90.

3 Months ago a D60 cost $2200 and today a 10D is $1500, with
predictions of $1000 by 2004.   Why won't that trend continue?.

I think Nikon is making small digi lenses because they think there
will be a non-pro market for the smaller sensor bodies, just as Canon
is pushing development of two lines.  The 10D is so good that tons of
users won't feel the need for the 1Ds.  The 10D will be the cash cow
and will justify keeping a high price on the pro model.  

Canon has raised the bar with the 10D and Pentax/Minolta and the rest
MUST follow suit or die in the SLR market.  Pentax has a new smallish
6mpx DSLR scheduled for this summer and I'm real interested to see
what they come up with (and at what price).

This twin track will probably last for 2 or 3 years until they figure
out how to make full frame sensors cheaply.  Then a whole new round of
product cycles will begin.  Sigh.  This camera-of-the-month club is an
expensive membership.  What are you going to do with your new 10D next
fall when they announce a 10Di (or something) that has an even better
sensor for $1000 (just in time for the holiday gift season)?  I'm sure
Nikon will have a full frame body and it's not going to be cheap.

A fun and interesting thread!

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

So far you've referred to sport car enthusiasts in the 50's and 60's as
geeks and nerds....now fans of  vinyl LP's and tube amplifiers are
irrelevant. Have you ever heard a Hammond B3? Your analogies are strange.
Why not stick to the theme of this group? An answer is not required...it
would be irrelevant. I used to learn a lot from these people but it seems to
have turned into an endless ego battle between a few. Sorry for my attitude
but enough is really enough.

bgs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:41 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] RE: a full-frame Nikon digital SLR this fall? (was Re:
[DigitalBW] digital)


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony
> Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> > Peter writes:
> >
> > > Speak for yourself.
> >
> > That is my usual practice.
> >
> > > Digital has many advantages over film.
> >
> > And many disadvantages as well.  I won't list them for the
> millionth time,
> > however.
>
> Most of the commercial and PJ and stock photographers I know are
> using digital.   Even the studio MF shooters are now going digital
> since the new lines of big format CCD's has started to come out.
> There's already a full-format 645 out.
>
> There are very few areas where digital still doesn't cut it.  If you
> really need 6x7 or larger you're stuck with film; if you need to do
> long exposures - in excess of a few minutes - film is the way to go.
> If you need full, non-bayesian-artifacted RGB resolution, film still
> has an edge, but it's a very slight one.
>
> But that's about it.  And all of those are corner cases.   Within a
> few years film-shooters will have to buy their film mail-order and do
> their own processing because the market for those things will be too
> small to support local labs and film stores.  Film shooters will be
> like fans of vinyl LP's and tube amplifiers - still around, but
> irrelevant.
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Hi There,
 
I am in agreement with Martin.  I have heard this debate about digital and film ad nauseum going on all around me.  I am a film guy with a whole bunch of years experience ( not telling the years)..lol   Still using film and will continue for a long time.  I have negatives and slides which have been stored well and I am scanning them into the computer. I joined this group to learn more about digital printing since I closed my darkroom a few years ago. Learning Photoshop, I discovered I can do much more creative work with the computer than I could do in the darkroom.  As far as I can see, film and digital will be with us for a long while.  I for one am not going to "mortgage the farm" to replace all of my film gear for digital.   Let's talk more about printing..:) BTW, Gary Benson, if you are from the NJ area.  I say hey there!!
 
T

Martin Wesley <mwesley250@...> wrote:
Guys,

Can you bring this thread back around to the list topic of B&W digital
printing. Kind of wandering a bit far field here.

Thanks,
Martin Wesley

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] RE: a full-frame Nikon digital SLR this fall? (was Re:
[DigitalBW] digital)


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony
> Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> > Peter writes:
> >
> > > Speak for yourself.
> >
> > That is my usual practice.
> >
> > > Digital has many advantages over film.
> >
> > And many disadvantages as well.  I won't list them for the
> millionth time,
> > however.
>
> Most of the commercial and PJ and stock photographers I know are
> using digital.   Even the studio MF shooters are now going digital
> since the new lines of big format CCD's has started to come out.
> There's already a full-format 645 out.
>
> There are very few areas where digital still doesn't cut it.  If you
> really need 6x7 or larger you're stuck with film; if you need to do
> long exposures - in excess of a few minutes - film is the way to go.
> If you need full, non-bayesian-artifacted RGB resolution, film still
> has an edge, but it's a very slight one.
>
> But that's about it.  And all of those are corner cases.   Within a
> few years film-shooters will have to buy their film mail-order and do
> their own processing because the market for those things will be too
> small to support local labs and film stores.  Film shooters will be
> like fans of vinyl LP's and tube amplifiers - still around, but
> irrelevant.
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

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

> However, I won't be considering future investment in Nikon
digital gear if
> it requires buying a new set of lenses.  I won't be led down
that path,
> sorry.

Anthony,

The people that are using digital Canon D1's, Sinar backs on
Sinars and Hasselblads write that few of their old lenses can
cope with the quality of the sensors. People that cling to their
old set of lenses and postpone the purchase of a digital system
as it means they have to buy new lenses may be disappointed when
the system that fits their lenses in the end also reveals that
their old lenses are not good enough.
So being loyal to a brand for economic reasons may not be so wise
at this revolution in photography

No experience myself but enough threads on that subject for
example on the Wide Format list the past days.

Ernst

> >Actually, though, I think Nikon is just blowing smoke to hide
something that
> >they are working on right now.  I hope I'm right, for their
sake and mine.

Nikon as a whole is having a hard time. Their division for wave
steppers and scanners used in the chip industry has lost a lot of
the market to ASML. A desperate legal battle doesn't help there.
Nikon service has become far worse than it was in the past. Some
flaws in the scanner and scan software of the 8000 and 4000 have
not been addressed in more than a year. And filmscanners are not
a product for the future but digital cameras are. Nikon's digital
cameras over the entire range are no competition to Canon's and
in the lower range not even to Sony's models.
To get it on topic, yes in B&W there will be an advantage to use
B&W film for the time being, as soon as sensors get more pixels
and or become more sophisticated (Foveon) then there's no
advantage anymore. There's an advantage in digital that you can
select the sensibility per frame that compensates part of the
latitude of B&W film. Not to mention that a double take in
digital is far less hassle in the process than in analogue. Yes,
start on a tripod.

Ernst

Peter writes:

> Most of the commercial and PJ and stock
> photographers I know are using digital.

Why do so many people think that photojournalism and a few types of
commercial photography are all there is?

> There are very few areas where digital still
> doesn't cut it.

If I want high image quality at a low price, digital is out of the running.

> Within a few years film-shooters will have to buy
> their film mail-order and do their own processing
> because the market for those things will be too
> small to support local labs and film stores.

Most of the world will be shooting film for many years to come, and
disposable film cameras represent the bulk of camera sales these days.

Ernst writes:

> The people that are using digital Canon D1's,
> Sinar backs on Sinars and Hasselblads write that
> few of their old lenses can cope with the quality
> of the sensors.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Ernst writes:

> Nikon as a whole is having a hard time.

Yeah.  Forty years ago, the leading camera for photojournalist was a Nikon
SLR.  Today, the leading camera for photojournalists is a Nikon SLR.  Hmm.

> And filmscanners are not a product for the future
> but digital cameras are.

Not true.  Even if everyone started shooting tomorrow, all the photos of the
past hundred years are still on film, and still have to be scanned.  That's
a huge market for scanners.

> There's an advantage in digital that you can
> select the sensibility per frame that compensates
> part of the latitude of B&W film.

B&W film can handle eleven stops without any adjustment at all.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bgs" <bgs@b...> 
wrote:
> So far you've referred to sport car enthusiasts in the 50's and 
60's as
> geeks and nerds....now fans of  vinyl LP's and tube amplifiers are
> irrelevant. Have you ever heard a Hammond B3? 

These days 99% of all "Hammond B3" that you hear in music is 
simulated digitally.  So what's your point?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton Jones [mailto:cj@...] 
<snip> 
> This twin track will probably last for 2 or 3 years until they figure
> out how to make full frame sensors cheaply.  Then a whole new round of
> product cycles will begin.  Sigh.  This camera-of-the-month club is an
> expensive membership.  What are you going to do with your new 10D next
> fall when they announce a 10Di (or something) that has an even better
> sensor for $1000
<snip>

Hi Clayton,
     I think everyone is forgetting that if a camera is good enough to
get good photos from now, that's not going to change when a better
camera comes out.  There will be people that always need to have the
latest and greatest, but my D100 takes very good photos now, and that
won't change in the future.  Digital SLRs have already reached a point
where they are good enough for most people's needs, so the rate of
turnover will slow down a little now when the newer cameras appear.

Thanks,
Ed
http://lightandsilver.com

That is a spectacularly pessimistic view of the situation.

You're only affected by the issue if you shoot more wide angle than 
telephoto.

And if you are affected, then we're talking about one new lens, not a 
whole new outfit!

Every other lens you own will still work, it just has a smaller field of 
view than when used with 35mm.

In article <00d801c31e50$1fbe5490$0a00000a@...>, 
anthony@... (Anthony Atkielski) wrote:

> They are not adapted to digital; they are adapted to a small frame size.
> Kind of like ... APS.
> 
> There's no fixed link between frame size and digital or film.
> 
> I wonder whether these special lenses are a tacit admission that 
> full-frame
> 35mm digital is technically difficult right now, or just a covert 
> effort to
> force digital photographers to buy a completely new set of lenses just 
> to
> accommodate the smaller image size.
> 
> Either way, it's bad enough when one must drop thousands just to buy the
> camera body; now one must buy all new lenses, too!  Every day, digital
> photography looks more and more like the "upgrade each month" syndrome 
> that
> has afflicted the computer world for decades.  Great for manufacturers, 
> but
> very, very grim news for photographers.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ernst Dinkla" 
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:

> The people that are using digital Canon D1's, Sinar backs on
> Sinars and Hasselblads write that few of their old lenses can
> cope with the quality of the sensors.

Some of us got into photography from the technical side such as 
science and engineering. (I started off doing astrophotography and 
eventually graduated to other subjects such as studio nudes)   Other 
photographers started off as art majors.

You can tell which are which by who can do the math.   

Fine grain film can resolve 80 lp/mm (or better - Panatomic-X could 
easily do over 100 lp/mm).   So do the math.   It takes (a MINIMUM 
of) two pixels to resolve a line-pair.  So a 36x36mm sensor such as 
the type used in MF photography would need to have 160 elements/mm to 
resolve 80 lp/mm.  That would be over 33 MP.    Sinar's best is 22 MP 
and it's 36x49mm, which means it's even lower-res than what I used in 
the above example.

So get over it: digital sensors are NOT as sharp as film.   Actually 
digital sensors are even worse than the above math suggests because 
of the need for bayesian reconstruction.   The color resolution is 
even lower than the luminance resolution.

The reason why art major MF photographers say that their digital 
backs are so good that they exceed the capabilities of their lenses 
is psychological:  they need to justify the astronomical amounts of 
MONEY those backs cost.   If it cost that much money its resolution  
must be incredibly, phenomenally, supercalifragilistically 
stupendous!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Peter writes:
> 
> > Most of the commercial and PJ and stock
> > photographers I know are using digital.
> 
> Why do so many people think that photojournalism and a few types of
> commercial photography are all there is?

It's MOST of what there is professionally.  

> 
> > There are very few areas where digital still
> > doesn't cut it.
> 
> If I want high image quality at a low price, digital is
> out of the running.

That's like saying that a Toyota Corolla is a better car than a BMW 5-
series because it's cheaper.   Being cheaper doesn't make something 
better.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Mathews" 



> I think everyone is forgetting that if a camera is good 
> enough to get good photos from now, that's not going to 
> change when a better camera comes out. 

That may be true for the consumer, but it's not true for two other 
factors in this discussion:

1.  Working pros.  They take a LOT of shots and their cameras are 
very heavily used every day.   So in a couple of years they're ready 
for replacement.

2.  Camera manufacturers need to sell NEW stuff to stay in business.  
I bought three Nikon FM2's in the 1980's (I still have two of them).  
But once I bought those that was it - I kept using them but they 
didn't generate any new revenue for Nikon.   Nikon can't rest on 
their laurels because they need a continuing revenue stream.

Derek writes:

> And if you are affected, then we're talking
> about one new lens, not a whole new outfit!

Until, of course, the manufacturer decides that digital bodies will have a
new, incompatible lens mount.

I've seen all of this happen before in other domains, particularly in the
land of personal computers and in the world of consumer video, and I
recognize the pattern.

Peter writes:

> It's MOST of what there is professionally.

And most of photography in the world is done with disposable film cameras.
Should we look to the use of disposable film cameras for future trends,
then?

> That's like saying that a Toyota Corolla is a
> better car than a BMW 5-series because it's cheaper.

No, it's like saying that a Toyota Corolla is both cheaper and better than a
collector's Model T.

Or it's like saying that the quartz watch on my wrist is both better and
cheaper than a Rolex.

> Being cheaper doesn't make something better.

No, but being both cheaper and better makes something a more logical choice
for someone who wants the best quality for his budget.

Peter writes:

> Camera manufacturers need to sell NEW stuff
> to stay in business.

They've managed to do that with film cameras for a century, even when
bringing out new models only every two decades or so.  That has not changed
today.

> But once I bought those that was it - I kept using
> them but they didn't generate any new revenue for Nikon.

So how did Nikon survive and prosper up to the present day?

> Nikon can't rest on their laurels because they
> need a continuing revenue stream.

They can get that without turning over the entire world's inventory of Nikon
cameras every six months.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:

> > It's MOST of what there is professionally.
> 
> And most of photography in the world is done with disposable film 
cameras.
> Should we look to the use of disposable film cameras
> for future trends, then?

Only if that's the level of skill and quality we aspire to.

The reasons why the pro's matter are:

1.  The pro's (or the art directors or other clients) have high 
standards for quality.  The fact that they are working in digital 
shows that digital can meet high standards.

2.  The pro's need to be productive, so technology that allows them 
to work faster, create a larger percentage of "keepers", and get 
more consistent or reliable results, appeals to them and should 
appeal to non-pro's on the same basis.

> > Being cheaper doesn't make something better.
> 
> No, but being both cheaper and better makes something 
> a more logical choice for someone who wants the best 
> quality for his budget.

Many film shooters are not thinking through the money angle on 
digital.   They only see the cost of the body but they fail to take 
into account the cost of the film and processing, or the value of 
their own time and cost of chemicals if they develop the film 
themselves.

Weekend snapshooters who only shoot a few dozen rolls a year may 
still find film cheaper.  But serious amateurs who shoot a hundred 
or more rolls of film a year are probably way ahead with digital.   
I use an Olympus 3030, which was $700 when I bought it a few years 
ago, for studio test shots and that's paid for itself many times 
over by reducing the amount of film I use, just in the studio!   If 
Nikon had a full-format DSLR then I could switch to digital for 
everything and save an even bigger bundle.   So I just don't 
understand the argument that digital is "expensive".   I see it as a 
cost REDUCTION option.

If it sounds the same to you there is no point.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 7:40 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] RE: a full-frame Nikon digital SLR this fall? (was Re:
[DigitalBW] digital)


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bgs" <bgs@b...>
> wrote:
> > So far you've referred to sport car enthusiasts in the 50's and
> 60's as
> > geeks and nerds....now fans of  vinyl LP's and tube amplifiers are
> > irrelevant. Have you ever heard a Hammond B3?
>
> These days 99% of all "Hammond B3" that you hear in music is
> simulated digitally.  So what's your point?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

If a new lens mount is introduced, then you can re-examine your brand 
loyalty then!

However I don't think either Canon or Nikon will go that way for a while. 
The advantage of being able to cater for existing customers is just too 
strong.

Olympus OTOH haven't got an AF exchangeable lens film SLR range since 
their attempt bombed in the 80s, so they can feel free to go their own 
way with 4/3rds.

In article <021501c31edb$579a0a90$0a00000a@...>, 
anthony@... (Anthony Atkielski) wrote:

> Derek writes:
> 
> > And if you are affected, then we're talking
> > about one new lens, not a whole new outfit!
> 
> Until, of course, the manufacturer decides that digital bodies will 
> have a
> new, incompatible lens mount.
> 
> I've seen all of this happen before in other domains, particularly in 
> the
> land of personal computers and in the world of consumer video, and I
> recognize the pattern.
> 
>

Okay. I asked politely that this thread be brought back to the topic of the
list or ended.  The main participants don't seem to have the courtesy or
good sense to do that. If you cannot comply, please do your posting on some
other list.

Martin Wesley



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:17 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] RE: a full-frame Nikon digital SLR this fall? (was Re:
[DigitalBW]


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Mathews"
>
>
>
> > I think everyone is forgetting that if a camera is good
> > enough to get good photos from now, that's not going to
> > change when a better camera comes out.
>
> That may be true for the consumer, but it's not true for two other
> factors in this discussion:
>
> 1.  Working pros.  They take a LOT of shots and their cameras are
> very heavily used every day.   So in a couple of years they're ready
> for replacement.
>
> 2.  Camera manufacturers need to sell NEW stuff to stay in business.
> I bought three Nikon FM2's in the 1980's (I still have two of them).
> But once I bought those that was it - I kept using them but they
> didn't generate any new revenue for Nikon.   Nikon can't rest on
> their laurels because they need a continuing revenue stream.
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...> Subject: Techies -vs- Artists
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ernst Dinkla"
> <E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> 
>> The people that are using digital Canon D1's, Sinar backs on
>> Sinars and Hasselblads write that few of their old lenses can
>> cope with the quality of the sensors.
> 
> Some of us got into photography from the technical side such as science and
> engineering. (I started off doing astrophotography and eventually graduated to
> other subjects such as studio nudes)   Other photographers started off as art
> majors.
> 
> You can tell which are which by who can do the math.
> 

You can also tell by who gives a flip about their photographs.

An artistically great but technically so-so photograph (HCB, etc., etc.)
will still be remembered as great. A photo that sets a new world record for
lpmm resolution but is artistically so-so will be forgotten pretty much
immediately. (Unless, of course, you work in Air Force surveillance. ;-) In
a fair, real-world photography fight, art wins every time.


> Fine grain film can resolve 80 lp/mm (or better - Panatomic-X could easily do
> over 100 lp/mm).   So do the math.   It takes (a MINIMUM of) two pixels to
> resolve a line-pair.  So a 36x36mm sensor such as the type used in MF
> photography would need to have 160 elements/mm to resolve 80 lp/mm.  That
> would be over 33 MP.    Sinar's best is 22 MP and it's 36x49mm, which means
> it's even lower-res than what I used in the above example.
> 
> So get over it: digital sensors are NOT as sharp as film.   Actually digital
> sensors are even worse than the above math suggests because of the need for
> bayesian reconstruction.   The color resolution is even lower than the
> luminance resolution.
> 

The point is moot. The numbers don't tell the whole story. There are already
a ton of people who are artistically more gifted, commercially more
successful, and much more respected as photographers than either you or me,
who say that digital is plenty good enough, right now. And their work shows
it. I know because as an advertising creative, you get to see it every day
(I'm talking both commercial and "fine art"). Awfully hard to write off ALL
of them as unwashed art school hacks who just don't know any better.

> The reason why art major MF photographers say that their digital backs are so
> good that they exceed the capabilities of their lenses is psychological:  they
> need to justify the astronomical amounts of MONEY those backs cost.   If it
> cost that much money its resolution must be incredibly, phenomenally,
> supercalifragilistically stupendous!

And the reason many technicians seem compelled to hide behind lp/mm charts
is fear. Fear when they see high-end digital and realize, "damn, that looks
really good!" Fear that just when they thought they understood the old
technology, they have to learn a new one. Fear that the old imposing
technical walls are down, and with affordable, high-quality, easy-to-use
modern equipment, even more "art majors" will now be able to do what THEY
do, and possibly do it better. You're right that it's psychological. Only it
has little to do with test lab superiority, and everything to do with
feelings of inferiority.

The answer is for both sides to take a very deep breath. Film is not going
away. But high-quality digital is very much here. You don't have to stand up
and salute, but you do have to acknowledge the reality.

Speaking for the "artists" (and still using film, BTW!),

Doug
http://www.intrinsicpictures.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Doug I."


 
> The point is moot. The numbers don't tell the whole
> story.  There are already a ton of people who are 
> artistically more gifted, commercially more successful,
> and much more respected as photographers than either you
> or me, who say that digital is plenty good enough, 
> right now. 

Look, Doug, try to keep up, OK?   There is no Cliff Notes
summary for this forum - you have to actually read the
postings.

**I'm** the one here who said that digital IS ready for
prime time and it's already the dominant mode for pro's.

But that's not what this thread ("Techies -vs- Artists")
is about, is it?   Go back and reread the original.  What
THIS thread is about is the claim by some MF shooters
that digital has such high resolution that it forces
them to buy new, sharper lenses.  And THAT's a statement
where numbers **DO** tell the whole story.  That's a claim 
that could only be made by an art major.

Well, there were more than a few pros who bought and used the N8008 as
their primary camera, and continued to use it well for years because it
worked for them.  I use my D100 professionally, and I know others who do
also.  I also know lots of pros that use the Fuji S2Pro, which is no
more "pro" than the D100 or N80 it's built on.  All I'm saying is that
if a camera gives you the results you need, then those results are not
going to somehow become less good when newer stuff comes out.

Thanks,
Ed
http://lightandsilver.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Nelson [mailto:peter@...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 8:18 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] RE: a full-frame Nikon digital SLR this 
> fall? (was Re: [DigitalBW]
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Mathews" 
> 
> 
> 
> > I think everyone is forgetting that if a camera is good 
> > enough to get good photos from now, that's not going to 
> > change when a better camera comes out. 
> 
> That may be true for the consumer, but it's not true for two other 
> factors in this discussion:
> 
> 1.  Working pros.  They take a LOT of shots and their cameras are 
> very heavily used every day.   So in a couple of years they're ready 
> for replacement.
> 
> 2.  Camera manufacturers need to sell NEW stuff to stay in business.  
> I bought three Nikon FM2's in the 1980's (I still have two of them).  
> But once I bought those that was it - I kept using them but they 
> didn't generate any new revenue for Nikon.   Nikon can't rest on 
> their laurels because they need a continuing revenue stream.

Sorry.  I sent a reply before I saw this.  I'll quit now. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Wesley [mailto:mwesley250@...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:43 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: a full-frame Nikon digital SLR 
> this fall? (was Re: [DigitalBW]
> 
> 
> Okay. I asked politely that this thread be brought back to 
> the topic of the
> list or ended.

There's a techie reason for this though, and it's not really a film vs 
digital argument!

Medium format lenses are designed to give good coverage over the full 
frame. 

Traditionally they don't have the same resolving power as 35mm lenses, 
because they don't need it and more resolution costs more money.

However along come digital backs for medium format cameras, and what size 
sensor do they have?

Not 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9 or even 6x4.5.

Mostly just 2.4x3.6 cm up to 4x4 cm. Yep, 35mm sized!

So the lenses designed for medium format can't really cope with the 
digital backs because really you need the lens resolving power to match 
the much smaller sensor.

The same thing applies to the backs for 5x4 cameras, which use the same 
sensors. In that market though the manufacturers have started to make 
"digital" lenses that are designed for the sensor size, not the size of 
the film that the camera was designed for.

In article <bae4re+fpa6@...>, peter@... (Peter 
Nelson) wrote:

> But that's not what this thread ("Techies -vs- Artists")
> is about, is it?   Go back and reread the original.  What
> THIS thread is about is the claim by some MF shooters
> that digital has such high resolution that it forces
> them to buy new, sharper lenses.  And THAT's a statement
> where numbers **DO** tell the whole story.  That's a claim 
> that could only be made by an art major.

Sorry Peter, but you have conveniently taken my comments completely out of
context. If that was the point you were attempting to make, it was cloaked
within a bunch of disparaging potshots at, as you so charmingly refer to
them once again here, "art majors". If you choose to include that sort of
bluster, you can't fault me or anyone else for calling you on it.

Flame on if you'd like. I'll be getting back to photography now, thanks.

Doug

> From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...>
> Subject: Re: Techies -vs- Artists
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Doug I."
> Look, Doug, try to keep up, OK?   There is no Cliff Notes
> summary for this forum - you have to actually read the
> postings.
> 
> **I'm** the one here who said that digital IS ready for
> prime time and it's already the dominant mode for pro's.
> 
> But that's not what this thread ("Techies -vs- Artists")
> is about, is it?   Go back and reread the original.  What
> THIS thread is about is the claim by some MF shooters
> that digital has such high resolution that it forces
> them to buy new, sharper lenses.  And THAT's a statement
> where numbers **DO** tell the whole story.  That's a claim
> that could only be made by an art major.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Doug I." 
<puzzolente@e...> wrote:
> Sorry Peter, but you have conveniently taken my comments 
completely out of
> context.

YOU are the one who took your comments them out of the context.

The context was a discussion about whether it was technically 
possible for a current digital sensor on a MF camera to have higher 
resolution than film. (no, it isn't) You tried to shift it into a 
conversation totally orthogonal from that, with no apparent grasp of 
what the thread was about.