Film vs. Digital "Prints"=Ken Rockwell/Erwin Puts Stance on it...Discussion Anyone???

[Jim Galli]

...subscription removed...

[Brian Ellis]

I've made thousands of prints in a darkroom, at least another thousand from scans (most done myself, a few drum scanned by others), and at least another thousand from digital cameras. And I'm supposed to care or even be interested in Ken Rockwell's opinions of prints made from different sources? Can't I see for myself? Can't anyone who's done darkroom work and now prints digitally see for themselves?

I've always thought Rockwell was a strange duck. I'm glad to see from QT's quote that Rockwell himself agrees.

[D. Bryant]

I don't want this to be a film vs. digital type of debate and which one is better, blah blah blah...I don't care since I use both, though my heart will always love film better even if one day I see digital being better...then my heart will be sad

This post reminds me a lot of this thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...hlight=digital

Don Bryant

[Marko]

Dead horses and such aside, why isn't this thread in The Lounge?

No, seriously, it should be safe to post it there, since this isn't about either politics or religion.

[jim kitchen]

Damn, someone left the lounge door open again.

Ken: An excellent graphic...

jim k

[paulr]

I've gone from printing conventionally to printing digitally over the last several years. I find even a cheap scanner produces higher quality prints than even a high end enlarging lens (I just sold my 150mm apo componon HM). But this is for small to moderate sized enlargements.

I can see from the maximum useable resolution of my scanner that I'm limited to enlargements of up to 4X or so. Beyond that I'll start having problems ... below that the prints are the sharpest and clearest I've ever produced.

To make big enlargements would require a much higher quality scanner. I don't have experience with this, so I don't know where currently the threshold would be.

My general sense is that with a scan, there's a kind of brick-wall limit to enlargement size. Above that size artifacts of the scanning process will start to intrude. Below that, they're invisible. An anolog scan, on the other hand, doesn't have any hard limit. Sharpness and perceived detail just gradually decline as the enlargement gets bigger.

[Jamie123]

Completely off topic but did you know that there's a youtube clip about you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RgL2MKfWTo

[Tim Meisburger]

I like Ken Rockwell. Although I always had a vague interest in LF, I might never have followed up without the encouragement and information I got from his site. Also, I completely agree with his mantra that 'the camera doesn't matter'. Art comes from the mind of the creator. His point is that a good photographer will make interesting images with any equipment (camera size, digital, film, etc.), while a poor one will make poor images whether he is using 8x10 or the latest 30mp SLR.

All that being said, to me many digital images look flat, but maybe that has to do with excessive sharpening in post-processing, as I never see that same flatness in film.

[Steve M Hostetter]

I say it like this: I replaced my 35mm with a digital SLR

when I want a technical camera I still need to use film

no one gets offended

[Jamie123]

Also, I completely agree with his mantra that 'the camera doesn't matter'. Art comes from the mind of the creator. His point is that a good photographer will make interesting images with any equipment (camera size, digital, film, etc.), while a poor one will make poor images whether he is using 8x10 or the latest 30mp SLR.

I strongly disagree with this wide spread notion that a good photographer will make interesting images with any equipment and that the camera doesn't matter. A good photographer knows what equipment he needs in order to achieve the results he has in mind. Just as an example, I think Massimo Vitali's work would be rather boring if it was shot on a 35mm film camera.
Whenever I hear a photographer say that it's all about "the eye" and that the equipment doesn't matter it's mostly BS.

PS: Of course your second comment, i.e. that a poor photographer will take poor images no matter what equipment he has, is true. All I'm saying is that I'm opposed to the notion that a good photographer is some kind of a wizard who will turn a pile of sh*t into roses just by looking at it. After all he has "the eye" doesn't he?