Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Whoa there, Jonathan! While I would say that I can turn out a gorgeous inkjet print - and if printed on the right paper a print that is virtually indistinguishable from a custom RC print - I would never claim that an inkjet print is "better" than a custom fiber print - that's like saying that chocolate ice cream is better than coffee ice cream; they are different animals; they have different looks and feels, and thus they aren't comparable. I may "like" one better than the other, but to say that one is "better" really doesn't cut it. At least not in my book. On 1/15/06 8:51 AM, "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org> wrote: > B. D. Colen wrote: >> >> I find that digital gives me an image by image, rather than roll by >> roll, >> choice of color v black and white. I was never particularly fond of >> color >> negative film, and wasn't thrilled with conversions to black and >> white. >> Digital, on the other hand, gives me better color, far, far more >> easily >> adjusted and balanced, and gives me black and whites that look like >> what I >> shot on black and white film. > > This is certainly true as well for film scanned to digital -- I had > the same misconception or bias against color film until recently. > With the ability to scan and adjust curves in Photoshop the final > output quality of a B/W inkjet print (at least in my hands) bests the > quality of a B/W fiber print. Inkjet prints can be made with long- > lasting carbon inks that have blacks as deep or deeper than the best > of silver gelatin. I daresay that you would have a hard time telling > the origin of such a print as from a B/W or color negative. > >> >> No, I'm not thrilled with the noise in shadows, but I'm getting >> used to it. >> I know that there are those who say 'why get used to it when you >> can use >> film?' And the answer is "because it is part of what is now main >> stream >> photography." If I was really bothered by it, I'd go with Canon >> and get >> smoother, cleaner results at iso 1600 than I got with the best 400 >> iso film. >> But I'm not all that thrilled with the overly clean Canon look - >> probably >> because I grew up on Tri-X. >> >> Now, am I as comfortable with my DSLR as I was with my M6s? No, I'm >> not. I >> love the feel of the Ms. I love the rangefinder framing. And there is >> absolutely no question that the latest Leica M glass had virtually >> no peers. >> That said, my DSLR is every bit as quiet as my M6, and I do like its >> ergonomics. The lenses? Some are up to Leica quality, some aren't. >> But all >> give me images that I can be proud of as frequently as my Ms did. > > What keeps me with the M6 (at least for the next year) is a couple of > factors: > > 1) the quality/size ratio -- you can compare an M6/film image against > a DSLR but compact digital cameras don't really approach the image > quality of an M6 and film. > 2) the dynamic range of film gives CCD sensors a run for their money > -- it is agreed that full frame sensor cameras do a terrific job but > they are large "beasts" compared to the M6 -- that said the 5D is > tempting if it weren't for my anticipation of the digital M. > >> >> So am I giving up something to get something? Yes, I suppose I am. >> I'm given >> up the feel of the Ms - and I am giving up those fast prime lenses; >> I've >> never been a zoom guy, and I've had to adapt to that. But life is >> about >> tradeoffs, so why wouldn't I expect photography to be? >> >> The bottom line, as always, is the results. And I'm willing to be >> that were >> I not now known as the ultimate Leica apostate ;-), I could be >> posting the >> black and white images I've been posting, telling everyone I shot >> them with >> my M6, and no one would question me. >> >> Finally, none of this means that someone else shouldn't be shooting >> film. If >> it does what you want it to do, and if money isn't an object - and >> if you >> don't have to turn results around quickly - why not keep shooting >> film until >> there's no film to shoot? > > We've reached the point where it is rather hard to beat the "digital > darkroom" in terms of quality -- I am using the new Epson K3 series > of printers namely the 4800. The time to give up film will be when a > high quality digital sensor can be married with the form factor of an M. > > Jonathan > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information