Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Two things Ted. I only mention the wife on the secure computer which resides in the cellar, past the furnace room, in a little chamber that was formerly used as a bomb shelter. Your message is as rational an explanation for the use of digital as I've heard in recent weeks. Like many, I'm contemplating which digital camera to buy. I don't dislike digital at all, but it is a bit much when person after person begins selling their Leica gear because of compulsive consumerism--and write message after message explaining their choice for the LUG. And I REALLY do look forward to those sold film cameras coming on the market at absurdly low prices. Sam S Ted Grant wrote: > Sam S said: > >>>I'm not one to pump poison into the pumpkin, but I say let all those >>>digital dorks divest their film cameras for digital as the resulting >>>price dump for film equipment will enrich my collection tenfold. And who >>>can blame them? Everybody needs the digital format to take prissy family >>>poses of children with gravy on their shirts. Great for 30 year school >>>reunions, too. How better to leave the expanding wife at home and in her >>>stead bring digital snapshots Photoshopped to look 50 pounds >>>lighter--the pretty princess of the cheerleader squad looks as sparkling >>>as she did at 16. And she resides in your nest. Who's to know?<<< > > > Gee Sam, > If yer married buddy I'd be very careful about leaving that post lying > around or you might not make it till the 30th re-union if your good wife > sees you referring to her in this manner.. ;-) > > It seems to me from the many posts going through there's too many folks > dumping their Leica's to go full digi, when in reality they should have both > to work / play with. Why? > > Well, Sandy and I are finding out quite quickly there are times when > shooting with film is best. Then there's the "quickie crash and burn" things > on occasion and there's no question, nick it off on digital and out of our > face as quick as possible. But still with excellent quality. > > Yep as a neophyte digi operator I'm very blown away with the quality and the > look of what I'm printing, quite amazing actually compared to film whatever > type. However, I'm still committed to film for many of the projects we're > working on and will be for sometime to come. Certainly until I feel as > comfortable with digi as I am with film with 53 years experience. > > The other day we discovered an interesting practical use of digital when we > had a few 16X20 prints to copy and new prints made. Shot with a Leica many > years ago, the negatives are now in the National Archives of Canada Photo > Collection, so we thought we'd flatbed scan them in sections then stitch > them in the computer as we've done before. > > Then the light dawned, "Why don't we copy them with the digital camera then > download to the computer?" And you wouldn't believe the very fine quality 13 > X 15 B&W prints we made. Unbelievable, honest. They looked better than the > original prints that were kind of beat up and slightly discoloured, but > still leica sharp! ;-) > > So now we've learned this quick trick to copy on digital, pop it into the > computer, tidy it up and print it. Now that's a very neat trick of digital > use and a good reason why to have both film and digital. > > Now we've got a little project to do with a number of beat-up big prints > from years gone by that should be "refreshed." :-) And re-printed. > > Just some passing thoughts on making use of both. > ted > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Quincy Ogwin" <quincyogwin@bellnet.ca> > To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 4:07 PM > Subject: Re: [Leica] Panasonic DMC-FZ10 with Vario-Elmarit lens > > > >>Poison in your pumpkin Sam, or did someone shit in your cornflakes ? ... >> >>Ech...take it easy. You should take some satisfaction that like most >>digital-ware, 99% will be lost to the fossil record. Who's to know the >>"expanding wife" ever existed in an expanded state when the future >>generations find that odd silver disk in the shoebox with the "what the > > hell > >>is this **.jpg format?" >> >>Remember though, digital is still a serious medium in the hands of a >>talented photographer. Don't let the unwashed masses or Michael H. > > Reichmann > >>put you off. >> >>-=- >>Quincy >> >> >>On 11/29/03 5:48 PM, "sam" <sam@osheaven.net> wrote: >> >> >>>Don Dory wrote: >>> >>>>Mark, >>>>Over on the Luminous Landscape site they have done a comparison of >>>>medium format backs. The basic premise is that the larger sensor is >>>>better than the one on the 1Ds but that you needed a dedicated body >>>>combination to take advantage of the digital back. So, all the Hassy >>>>gear is being turned in because the various bodies don't deal well with >>>>one shot backs. This is why the deal with Fuji went through, to have a >>>>dedicated back. >>>> >>>>Another answer is the classic, it's good enough. A third answer is > > that > >>>>it is now a digital file you are selling so the art director can't get >>>>all hissy over wanting a certain size transparency on the light table. >>>> >>>>Don >>>>dorysrus@mindsprig.com >>>> >>> >>>-- >>>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html >> >>-- >>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html