[Leica] High ISOs Comparison

[telyt at earthlink.net (Douglas Herr)]

On Dec 7, 2006, at 8:04 PM, Frank Filippone wrote:

> Doug, with all respect... BS......

Not at all Frank.  Tina has found that SilkyPix produces much better 
results than C1, and the average user with D76 is benefitting from many 
hundreds of tests my countless photographers over the years - yet the 
average user isn't optimizing his development.  What's the point of 
Xtol or TMax developer if D76 is all we need?

The real question here is what's the goal of using the camera?  Is it 
snapshots of the kids?  if so a Leica isn't the optimum tool because it 
requires additional user involvement in the process than the mainstream 
cameras do.  Likewise on the processing end of the imaging chain.  If 
you don't try to optimize the results you're losing a lot of the 
advantages Leica has to offer.

>
> The average user uses D76 1:1 if he is sophisticated, and straight if 
> he is not.  The esoteric user tries Pyrocat HD in ( I forget,
> some other chemical....)  But it is not the esoteric user that buys a 
> M8....  It is your average every day Doctor, Lawyer or Indian
> Chief.... someone with financial assets to spend $5K on a digital 
> camera to take pictures of Little Dora Sue.....  ( Pink party
> dress and all.... )
>
> You can always find someone who tries out some weird combination of 
> chemistry ( I read about a guy that developed his film in
> coffee.....) and got a result.  So what?  ...   Would you like to try 
> out Vitamin C ( basis of Xtol) or Pyro ( around for roughly
> 100 years)......?  I have heard of both used ...
>
> But SW changes faster than known chemistry changes...   If you try to 
> keep up with the technology advances, you will get mired down
> in trying stuff instead of making images.... and isn't that what the 
> camera is all about   Making Images?
>
> What Tina is doing is fine for Tina.... But I personally have no 
> intention of going through 7 different SW programs and their ( 2 to
> the 7th or 128) combinations  to find a mix that makes my M-whatever 
> work like it is advertised.  And I bet that even in the LUG,
> there are fewer than a handful that want to go through as much trouble 
> as she already has.....  Never mind that EACH of these
> programs costs money, and takes time to try out.....and will be around 
> and supported  for some indeterminate  time.  Mind you, Tina
> has not yet found the magic bullet to equal what another camera has 
> shown is possible....
>
> Let me say all of this some other way.... In RAW files, the data form 
> each pixel is measured and recorded.  If you view those
> pixels, you get an accurate rendition of what the sensor saw.  Why is 
> ANY SW tweaking necessary?  Where do the original pixels go?
> Where do the new pixels come from?  Why does program X not give the 
> same results as program Y?  I don't need this grief to take
> images....and most users don't want it either.
>
> The point is to make it easy for the user, the AVERAGE user. To get 
> results like the factory claims are possible.

If you are an average user, use an average camera: one that's 
pre-programmed to give average results.  If you want 
better-than-average results, get involved in the process.

Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com