Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 08:18 AM 01/08/97 -0700, you wrote: >On 31 Jul 97, Richard W. Hemingway wrote: > >> Well I got back the second batch of slides I took with my new R8. >> Kodachrome 25. I could compare them with some slides I had taken with >> the M6 and 35/1.4 ASPH, which were extremely sharp. > Roger beamon replied: >Your remarks are interesting, Dick, but it must be said that the marginal >differences that *might* be evident between the systems and lenses that >you are comparing would generally not be evident with projected slides. A >good light table and loupe will reveal more. Roger, I've heard this said before, that a light table and a good loupe reveal more than with projected slides. I'm not convinced that it anything more than a myth. It could be my failing eyesight, but I can't pick up *very* subtle differences from one test slide to the next using a good quality loupe. For me, enlarged prints seem to be the best way to make very fine comparisons. I can look from one to the other quickly, and really see the differences. With slides, unless the two images are projected side-by-side, there is the brief, critical delay during the time slides are changing. With the loupe, you have to take your eye from the loupe, lift your head, reposition the loupe on the next slide, and return your eye to the loupe, allowing your eyes to readjust to the light level after getting a blast from the light table if the slides haven't been masked. - -GH