Re: [Leica] Analog vs. digital

[Matti Sulanto <matti@abcd.fi>]

I have been using Nikon D1 digital camera for about four months now and I
have to say that it works really well for most publishing purposes.

Most pictures that are printed in a magazines or brochures are half page or
less so the 10 Mb CMYK file is enough. For full page pictures I have used
Genuine Fractals to scale up the file. The results are pretty good,
depending on the subject. I'd say it looks as good as the average picture
taken with 35 mm film and scanned. You can't get good quality 11 x 17
magazine spread, but how often do you need that? Besides, sometimes you see
really bad looking (technically) spreads that are scanned from 35 mm.

Of course you wish there were more pixels, and in near future we will see
digital cameras with more pixels. Printing process, however makes little
imperfections disappear. For example, you can have some noise in dark areas
and it does not show in printed publication because of the dot gain.
Digital has many andvantages over film. No more running to lab and back,
shoot in any color temperature, fast preview, fast delivery my e-mail, if
you shoot in a studio client can have the picture to go, etc.

I still use 35 mm ( yes it is a Leica ) camera to record holidays and some
personal projects, but for production work I will use the D1 or if that is
not enough the Mamiya RZ. It is true that digital doesn't compare with film
yet, but the printing process makes the gap quite narrow. After my four
month experience with digital I have to say that it is really good and
practical for most work that gets printed in a magazine or brochure. I,
with so many others, hope to see even better digital cameras in near future. 

Matti