[Leica] Leica Digilux 2 @ 1600 :-)

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

B. D. Colen offered:
Subject: RE: [Leica] Leica Digilux 2 @ 1600 :-)


> I have too say, however, that much as I respect, admire, and like Ted, I
> don't get what he's claiming. I took a few shots yesterday setting my
> iso for 400, dialing in -2EV, and what I got was - two grossly
> underexposed images in which I could see the noise on the LCD. No, I
> didn't download them and follow the rest of his formula - I'll try that
> today. But I don't get it. Unless - and this may be the trick - IF he's
> shooting in really low-light, very contrasty situations, if he's taking
> an overall reading of the scene, what he may be unwittingly doing is
> exposing properly for the highlights, which are at least two to three
> stops above the shadows, and turning the shadows to solid black, so that
> the noise disappears in the shadows. Just a thought.<<<<<<

Hi B.D.,
This is exactly what I do and for whatever reason it produces fine "un-noisy
prints at 11.7 X 16.5 on Epson Enhanced matte and or semi-lustre paper."
Matte black ink on the matte paper and photo black on lustre paper. My
preference is for enhanced matte paper prints.

Digilux 2 set at 400 ISO,  EV scale slide bar over 2 stops under exposed.
Then shoot pictures! Looking on the screen of the camera and first down load
to computer, images are dark as under exposed.

Then in PhotoShop, I either auto-level or go into levels and make a slight
change as the image looks on computer screen to my eye and save! That's it,
other than occasionally a slight contrast increase.

The metering is strictly in-camera "auto exposure in multi-field setting of
meter!" Then it's look through viewfinder, compose, shoot!"

The later fiddling I explained above. I've shown prints to people who are
experienced viewers of  photographs good, bad and ugly and they all respond
with..... "Well I don't see anything wrong with that print quality!"

So obviously there's something different here from what you are saying and
doing compared to what happens.  On the one hand I find it frustrating
because I keep thinking these should be ugly noisy prints and poor quality
re-productions, but they aren't. And I wish to hell I knew what's happening
compared to what other shooters are experiencing.

By the same token I'm pleased at what I see in B&W pushed settings that I
thought wasn't possible .

ted