"Rev. Sidney Flack" <sgflack@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote/replied to: >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. Ahem. My feelings after going digital are that a digital image far surpasses a film scan in many ways. One is the dynamic range of tones and colours. Cibachrome's limitations may be what endures it to some, but for me, the incredible reality of a digital image is better. I don't have any film bias or limitations to work with. I truly see what I saw through the viewfinder in my images. As to black and white, to me it is only really effective when it's tonal range is limited. I mean I don't look at a black and white and say 'wow, what a nice tonal range'. I see more patterns and symbolism perhaps in the lack of colour in an image. The most impressive black and white are perhaps high contrast images mostly. In any case, black and white to me is history. I rejoice in the colours of nature and digital photography really allows me to bring them back out to live again. Unlike film where you struggle to get all the colours back where they should be but never really manage to do it.
