Michael (correctly) wrote:
>I disagree that a high end digital camera (which will cost at least US$1000
to get 3.3 MP and that still doesn't approach the information even a Scanwit
can offer) will do the job for B/W. B/W is not just a matter of "dumping the
color"... at least not if you are a serious practitioner of the craft...
that
may be ok for a press release but not for someone who knows the difference
between TMax and Tri-X...
Ah, yes, but the 3meg digital offers the advantage of being able to show
"proofs" and fix problems on-site before you waste several rolls of
film--although it's slightly a time-consuming process and wouldn't be
appropriate for sports-shooting, or a rock concert either, for that matter.
I, too, have been able to "bring up" my old badly-shot available-light Tri-X
negs with my Acer 2027S to satisfactory--if far from great--levels, and
better than I ever did in a darkroom. The funny part is (and no offense
intended) that I scan them as *color film* to get the best contrast and
middle-tones, then dump the color information.
OTOH, I don't think one would actually recommend Tri-X as a film for
"serious" B/W photography. It's nice to be able to push to 1200 or even
2400asa (at your peril!!), and it produces some remarkably nice grain, but
it's a bit specialized, would you agree? Depends on what you're shooting and
shooting for, I suppose.
I think there are good things to be said about either and all approaches,
and one has to accept--and expect there to be--trade-offs. It's the "good
picture" that counts, really. For hyper-serious B/W, it's pretty hard to
beat an old 8x10 cherrywood camera with a big, slow, barrel lens, but it
wouldn't work particularly well at a rock concert. As I said--trade-offs.
Having said that, I'll retake my seat at the back of the class, and
hopefully no harm done. :-)
Best regards--LRA
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at
