Earlier "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Antonio wrote:
>Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints.
Here I must disagree. A properly printed digital print is equal in quality to an average film print, up to 8x10 at least. Above 8x10 and for severe crops I'll agree with you. Our Frontier 375 minilab does a surprisingly good job on Fuji Crystal Archive paper.
Bill
A couple of days ago I read an article on George DeWolfe in the August issue of Shutterbug.
DeWolfe has been a large format nature photographer, author and teacher for many years.
In the article he says "Digital is now my medium..." and names a couple of popular DSLRs that he uses. Even so, he goes on to say that he still shoots with his 4x5. When he does, he uses Polaroid type 55pn. He says "All I have to do is put the film in the sodium sulfite in the sink, wash it, hang it to dry, and then scan it. Everything else from the negative on is digital."
He goes on to describe why he prefers digital. A couple of striking quotes:
"The digital process allows me to express a lot more about white and tones and about my subject than I was ever able to express in silver."
"The ink jet gives me a much better realization than I ever had in silver, a print with subtleties that are much closer to what I felt when I took the image."
He describes getting much better denser blacks, and smoother gray scales by using quad-tone inks and an ink jet printer and goes on to describe the control he has with digital as "magnificent".
But the best line in the article is this. On the topic of his preferring digital:
"Why that bothers some people I don't know. It still goes back to seeing and capturing a good picture - it really does."
And that is the bottom line. I encourage you to pick up a copy of the magazine and read the article. It's illustrated with several of his photos.
See you later, gs
