[Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity / DARKROOMS & CHEMICALS.

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> Surely both are floating dots? The difference is only size and randomness. 
> I
> know B&W film has silver grains randomly floating in gelatin as the 
> sensitive
> element whereas digital has an even grid of fixed position electronic light
> sensitive elements. The irony is, of course that the film process then 
> becomes
> immediately digital, since a light effected grain is on or off, whereas the
> digital sensor is analogue at this point and can resolve 12 to 14 bits of
> dynamic range (it requires over 4000 grains of silver to produce the same
> depth as 1 pixel) which is amplified, if required, to be equivalent to a
> higher sensitivity (iso) adding noise, then converted into digital in a A/D
> convertor.
> In prints it looks like the dots from an inkjet are random, but I imagine 
> they
> aren't. The silver grains -are- random.
> But they are both floating dots.
> Or have I missed something?


The amount of pixels it takes to record a single diaphanous floating grain
correctly so the images made out of such can be then recorded?
To me it was the difference between the nikon  Coolscan 2000 and 4000 ED's.
The 4000 could pretty much make the grain paper from a neg look the way it
was supposed to. Like a silver print made with an enlarger. Darned close.


Mark William Rabiner