Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/06/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Really you guides think about all this stuff way to much! Why not just go shoot new pictures???? Lot's more fun than burning brain cells? :-) cheers, Dr. ted :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence Zeitlin" <lrzeitlin at gmail.com> To: "Leica LUG" <lug at leica-users.org> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:26 AM Subject: [Leica] Re; Copy quality (was HCB negative) > Mark writes: > > "Larry the problem being that when you try making a matching print from > that > > 35mm copy negative and put them side by side the difference is shocking. > It > > really looks like a copy of a copy." > > - - - - > > No argument. But you have significantly overstated the case. With analog > photography every step away from the original changes, but not necessarily > degrades, the final image quality. But remember how many steps take place > before you see a photo on the wall or printed in a book. There is the > original taking lens, of course, with all it's inherent aberrations. Then > there is the film with a catalog of compromises in color sensitivity, > grain > size, emulsion thickness. Add the nature of the developing process which > influences contrast, gradation, and graininess. Unless you are shooting > negatives of the actual display size you must factor in the > characteristics > of the enlarging lens and possibly the characteristics of the enlarging > light source. And of course all the variables of the printing process, > paper > grade, surface treatment, and developer. For publication you must also add > the lenses and treatments necessary for platemaking and the > characteristics > of the actual reproduction process itself. And for all I know, the phase > of > the moon. > > > By a crude estimate, there are at least five, and possibly up to ten, sets > of variables that intervene between the clicking of the shutter and the > final image as displayed on a wall or in a book. In a sense, that's the > flexibility of traditional photography. Image quality can be altered at > many > levels, using many techniques. One of the early criticisms of digital > photography was that it was inflexible compared to wet photography. It was > not until Photoshop and other image correction programs were developed > that > serious photographers would even consider abandoning traditional > techniques. > In digital photography, of course, there is there no degradation in > successive generations of images. > > > Despite the doctrinaire attitude of purists, creating the final product > from > a copy negative is a well accepted technique. Few of us, except in a > museum, > have ever seen the original prints made by photographic masters. Every > studio movie you see in a theater is a copy print. Many of the photos sold > by stock agencies are produced from copy negatives. All of the images seen > in printed publications, including the LUG Yearbook, involve copies. > Discussing the "quality" of images derived from copies is like discussing > virginity amongst whores. It is a non issue. > > > Larry Z > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information