Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/05/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]When Constantine Manos stood up in front of us (LHSA) in Rochester Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 8:30PM about the first thing he said to us was that his images we were about to see where not altered by such software. And this was the first I'd heard of such software. I had to ask the guy next to me what the hell he was talking about. All his shots then done with an M8. He said something to the effect that if any of his images looked like Tri X or Kodachrome it was a pure coincidence; he'd not cheated on it. My only thought at the time was "of course". - - from my iRabs. Mark Rabiner http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/springdays/ > From: Dante Stella <dstella1 at ameritech.net> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 07:38:11 -0400 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Shocking: MM images do not look like film! > > Mark is right. We don't need "Salgadogram." People have wanted grain-free > high > ISO monochrome pictures forever. And here it is. Seeking to emulate (what > everyone has always considered to be) technical defects in film is > regressive > and disingenuous. > > Dante > > On May 19, 2012, at 2:29 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > >> My point is not to say people are saying film is better. >> But that its being said there is a discernable difference even at smallish >> file sizes Between film and digital imagery. >> And I feel strongly there is no tonality advantages to film unless the sun >> is in the picture behind some clouds. Maybe. >> They only way you know film from digital is where the noise lands. >> Highlights for film, shadows for digital. >> And you see those kinds of things only in real big pix. Not the stuff we >> see >> on the internet. Which tends in most cases to be the only stuff anybody >> ever >> sees. >> >> I'm against film emulation software which puts grain in the highlights and >> gives a red over sensitive "tri x look". >> Its baloney. And The inference is there is some advantage to the "film >> Look". >> Well there is no "film look". Not in the file sizes we see on the >> internet. >> >> If I and a lot of photographers I know thought that there was some >> worthwhile film look we'd be shooting film to get that look. Not digital >> and >> hyper compensation for it. >> >> I Can't Believe It's Yogurt! >> I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! >> >> I'm against doing one thing and pretending its another thing. >> There's a real back stabbing passive aggressive element to it. >> >> >> - - from my iRabs. >> Mark Rabiner >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/springdays/ >> >> >>> From: John McMaster <john at chiaroscuro.co.nz> >>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 17:46:24 +1200 >>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Shocking: MM images do not look like film! >>> >>> http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/leica-m-x-r/37364-leica-m-monochromatic-proces >>> sing-insights.html which links to >>> >>> http://fotografz.smugmug.com/Photography/Jonos-MM-files/23016060_2TzGLp#!i=1 >>> 851170263&k=swB4gbS >>> >>> john >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> Mark, no one says film is better. If you look at the referred to images, >>> they were quite flat. The author eventually admits that he could have >>> done >>> more and indeed he passed the files to other people who did more and the >>> images were 100% better. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information