> While a digital print is tactile and thing that can be held in the hand > or hung on a wall, it is still not the same as a fine, expressive black > and white print or a cibachrome nor will it ever compare. Digital may > be "easier", but I doubt it. Nor is that necessarily the point of it. > It is just different and valid in its own right. > Rev., Alan, Bobby I completely agree with your views on apples and oranges comparison between digital and film based photography. Based on what I have seen done (by people I know here), digital is great, sometimes indistinguishable from film, for color (and Jeff may agree that b/w too) portrait work. But some of the 'landscape' work is still not "there" as far as digital capture is concerned. But, Rev., I think tango drum scanning of film media (say velvia) followed by lightjet printing looks sometimes at par (or better) with Cibachrome. Also, one can easily standardize digital workflow to get there rather than tedious learning curve for Cibachrome prints! (?) (I also read Jim's comment about Frontier prints being superior. They are indeed great, but I think not yet comparable to Lightjet. Frontier diodes are probably nowhere near lightlet lasers as far as beam narrowness is concerned?). thanks, achal
