Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: is digital photography for real?
From: Paul Schiemer <pschiemer@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:45:21 -0500

Nathan wrote:

<<F'rinstance, I can sharpen up digitally any lens which is not up to
scratch. Likewise colour rendition etc. Not to mention cropping,
dodging,
and other traditional techniques.

So the nub of the argument is something like this:

1) A photographer can have a vision of what he wants at the 'decisive
moment'.

2) If he hasn't quite got it as he wants it, then photographic/digital
manipulation may be quite in order to enable the photographer to express
what he wants to express. (For 'he' please read 'she' - Tina and her
sisters are the greatest!)

3) Quite logically - it's the final image that matters - not the kit it
was
taken with, or how it was achieved. It's a bit like asking Van Gogh
which
brushes and brands of paints he used.>>

The question is a two part one, and Nathan answered well the second
part, digital manipulation - after the photograph was taken.

I've used the $60,000.00 digital cameras; ones with sophisticated MOS
&/or CCD/CCP digital backs (either second party mods or with the makers
name on them), even played with one costing a $Million bucks once
(NASA).
There's something to be said for linear resolution when you have a
sensing array with 800K+ pixels square and 256 levels deep.

BUT, nothing (IMO) compares to continuous tone, emulsion based imagery.
It is the essence of photography, its’ very foundation.

While a person can manipulate an image obtained in either realm (digital
or traditional) to ‘appear’ sharper, nothing really changes the actual
‘circle of confusion’ as it relates to sharpness.
It is the way the light passes through the lens, and the lenses ability
to NOT resolve the apparent acuity of latent image- that quantifies
sharpness.

If NASA was using a Blatzmo lens on their million dollar gem, it would
be less sharp, no matter what.  [They don’t BTW, it’s a Zeiss.]
The only way to manipulate sharpness in a digital image is to adjust the
relative contrast between adjacent pixels.  It neither enhances the
resolution of the image (that was decided before manipulation), nor does
it correct for spherical aberrations.

Digital is here to stay, of course.  It’s something any photographer
should become acquainted with.  But, like motion pictures (movies), film
won’t go away.  [Movie industry was all abuzz with tales of doom when
video came out, talking the late 60’s here, but it’s still doing quite
well!]