I am interested in both the specs and the process, although I should say that for me digital plus a software workflow seem immediately more convenient, for several reasons.

Still, the question of the end result remains of interest. When film enthusiasts say they have the best result, what exactly are they claiming? Few seem to be able to explain; there seems to be a reliance on assertions.

I seem to remember Alan, from a discussion a way back of Linux and applications, that you have experience of proofing and the CMYK print process. From what I've read, digital images do not transfer easily to CMYK, but does this mean that film images do? Can you comment on that?

I can comment. You are a dumbo who clearly does know what drivel you spout. Really - "digital images do not transfer easily to CMYK, but does this mean that film images do"...

Go away before someone pours ink in your hair and steals your packed lunch.

_________________
Click here for Lamma-zine stories and recent Lamma Spotlights of the Week:
Photo, Video, Person, Wildlife, Bird, Artwork.

_________________
Click here for Lamma-zine stories and recent Lamma Spotlights of the Week:
Photo, Video, Person, Wildlife, Bird, Artwork.

Some facts and statistics here might be of interest if that's what you're after.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/ ... tal.1.html

I guess film does have a higher resolution (down to molecule size rather than pixel size) which might count if you are going to mount an exhibition of huge billborad sized prints (as they did outside the Natural History Museum last summer).

But in the end, the artistry transcends the medium - recall Harry Haller at the end of Herman Hesse's Steppenwolf listening to Mozart on a cracked gramophone record and just marvelling at the sublime music.

Thanks for this. On a first quick reading, if we accept Clark's approach, I get the impression that digital is not far behind film, in terms of effective resolution.

Still, I'm a bit confused by the references to monochrome and color sensors with Bayer in parentheses. My understanding is that it's the Bayer filtering that establishes RGB input for color sensors. It's difficult to know who would be buying cameras with purely monochrome sensors (the security and surveillance market?).

Your exalted call to artistry a la Herman Hesse seems a bit out out of context. If we accept the analogy, then film versus digital would be equivalent to orchestras using traditional analog instruments on the one hand and electric instruments (using digital audio electronics) on the other, with perhaps a few digital synthesizers thrown in for good measure. You can see how your average Mozart symphony would benefit.

The cracked record on the gramophone would then presumably be the torn and crumpled output from a broken printer, with the art of the photographer still discernible, as also the originating technology. The question would still remain as to the the relationship between the technology and the art, a question that is particularly acute in the case of photography, where there's been a reluctance to recognize that photography is an art. That reluctance presumably stems, in part, from the heavy reliance on the technology, a reliance that superficially is at odds with romantic notions of human artistic creativity. Still, don't all write in at once on this one.