Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?

[NickTrop]

I don't think you are, but you are putting digital P&S as a better solution than a digital rangefinder, and in my experience, this is not the case. 😉

Great pics! - As for digital RFs? Don't see the point, not a fan. But that's a topic for another day.

 

[NickTrop]

I have the Fuji S3 Pro, and I can assure you that the difference between a Tri X shot and a Fuji shot is VERY substantial in favour of Tri X, so the presumed 11.5 stops for Tri X against 10 stops for Fuji do not tell the truth.

How/Why? Stops of DR are stops of DR, aren't they? And unlike the TMAX example you've cited, it's not an issue of "translateability".

 

[Finder]

You're misstating my argument. Here's how/why:

Camera A "is better" at the things that are more important (that is, is a better tool) because it excels at the important components of that particular type of photography. Those components being:

1 Absolute discreetness
2. Complete portability
3. Ability to fire off many shots per second
4. Ability to shoot prolifically (100's of images) with minimal pauses
5. Ability to shoot under any condition

My best documentary work comes from equipment that breaks every one of your points. I have compact cameras with me quite often, but my best work does not come from them. It is not the equipment, it is the operator. Your argument is flawed.

 

[dfoo]

Please don't tell me you look at this particular photo and are concerned with "shadow detail" and "highlights". Wow. This photo would work on a postage stamp. It would work in monochrome.

If you think that print is a good duplicate of the submitted image I don't know what to say. As I said previously, I suspect you don't have very high standards.

 

[NickTrop]

@Finder: because your "best documentary work" breaks every one of these points does not make my argument "flawed". To the contrary, it makes your argument against my argument flawed. That is, your argument against my argument is logically fallacious - specifically, you're arguing ad verecundiam.

@dfoo: Oh - I have "high standards". It's just that my "high standards" are in regard to things that matter. It seems to me that your "high standards" pertain to the inconsequential and trivial. It is not me who "lacks standards" it is you who are misguided on the "wheres" and "to whats" said high standards should apply. Sad, actually.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

As per the OP's wishes, I am closing this thread.