Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This sounds kinda interesting; but would someone PLease state succinctly what Ted's discovery is. I must confess that I got a bit confused by last week's discussion. BD? All the best, Peter B. D. Colen wrote: > Okay. So I took several shots at 400 iso with 2 Evs of underexposure > dialed in, which means I shot at the exposure equivalent of 1600 iso. > Two shots were taken of a scene with window light and indoor dim. Then I > took a self-portrait, in basically flat, low light. > > (Keep in mind that I am shooting in color and running my standard bw > conversion routine in Photoshop as the E-1 does not have a bw shooting > mode.) > > As I suspected, the contrasty scene ends up looking very close to the > way Ted describes it. With no photoshop adjustments, other than my > standard routine for conversion to bw, the shadows go way dark almost to > black, the brighter areas are much closer to properly exposed. There is, > indeed, some noise in the mid-tones, just as there would be grain in the > midtones in a shot taken on tri-x at 800 asa. The noise is definitely > there, but it is grain-like, and not as displeasing as as noise when the > camera is set at 1600. > > The second shot, with the very low, generally flat lighting, is another > story. Here I had to goose the highlights way, way, up, compressing the > tonal range, to get a useable image. But when I did, and when I then > took the midtones up by about 20%, I got an image that resembles nothing > so much as a shot on Delta 3200 @3200, processed in Xtol. Noisy as hell, > BUT again the noise looks much more like film grain. > > Now, one of two things are entirely possible here: > > 1. While I am nowhere near the photographer Ted is, I am more digital > savy, and I may be seeing noise as noise where he either isn't seeing > it, or is interpreting it improperly; > > 2. Ted may be 100% correct in what he is seeing. And if that is the > case, it would indicate that whoever has written the software > instructions for the DigiII to shoot in bw has performed a miracle of > some sort - and that alone would make the camera, or at least it's less > expensive Panasonic incarnation, a definite 'must have.' > > I have no idea which is true. But in either case, the results are > surprisingly good. I would certainly want to fiddle with this a great > deal more before trying it on money shots, but it is very, very > intriguing. > > Late on I'll post the two images to the gallery and you can see for > yourselves - as much as you can see at 72dpi on screen. :-) > > B. D. > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > Eric > Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 7:55 PM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: [Leica] Re: I R.I.P. ILFORD now Delta3200 > > > Nathan: > > >>My choice is Neopan 1600 processed in XTOL or Fuji developer. > > > I concur with Neopan 1600 in Xtol. Love the tones. Love the grain of > Neopan 400 better, though. Better grain than no shot, though. :) > > What's the main difference you've seen between Neopan in Xtol and in the > Fuji developer? > > -- > Eric > http://canid.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >