Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric Welch wrote: > > Funny, I notice a difference in Leica black and white negatives too. It's > obviously not sharpness when you look at them on a light table from a > distance. I haven't even really thought about why they might look > differently. But there is a difference. Wonder what it is. You figured it > out? Lack of flare? > > Or maybe it's something as mundane as they are better exposed I think it is contrast of the lenses. Nikon lenses look flat by comparison. The images I saw the other night by Colin Finley, shot by Canon were nice prints, but highlights blown. They looked like prints done where you take a flat negative and bump the contrast--they get an edginess that I don't like. Same feeling I had of James Nachwey's work. Whereas the Leica negs seem to produce a richness of tonal ranges that is different than simple contrast. Salgado's prints, for instance, have a subtley of tones I like. Hard to define, at least for my non-technical mind. I just like them better and find they are easier to print. But, as shown by the powerful documentary work of Finley's I saw, content can be so strong it overcomes all technical considerations. donal - -- Donal Philby San Diego http://www.donalphilby.com