Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/06/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Had the technogy timeline been reversed and we were masters of the digital process who THEN had to learn this just out new silver gelatin technology (film) and we showed up to a meeting with our photo enthusiast and pro friends who'd all printed their prints in their new darkrooms or had their prints custom printed and this writer guy showed up with 4x6 machine printed snapshots from Walgreens it would have been the same thing. Completely inexcusable. Puerile. Apples and oranges. To say something to the effect that "the jpegs were so good we didn't need to shoot raw" indicates a total non understanding of the technology, ramifications, workflow on top of a seeming lack of care about the craft. Such people if they can't learn new tricks should not be writing in photo magazines about digital technology. Or stick to writing about the film processes they know and care about. - though its not a photo magazine I see its an online thing. On 6/5/13 3:52 AM, "Peter A. Klein" <pklein at threshinc.com> wrote: > Jim Hughes is the former editor of Camera 35, from which I learned an > awful lot of what I know. And also Camera Arts. So I suspect he knows > what he's doing. > > Here's what I find really interesting. This guy edited two seminal > photo magazines and wrote books on Gene Smith and Earnst Haas. He edited > the writing of master craftsmen like David Vestal. So what was his film > RF gear before he went digital? Not a Leica. He prefers a Canon 7 and > LTM Canon lenses. And he still wants to use those lenses on a modern > mirrorless camera. He says they see like he sees. Food for thought. > > I'm a firm believer in RAW myself. But many users of Olympus E-series > cameras who have found that the Olympus JPGs are so good that they can't > do any better processing the RAWs. This of course assumes that they've > gotten all the umpteen parameters set just right before they take the shot. > > There was not a lot of RAW support for the Fuji X-E1 and X-Pro1 when > they came out, so some people got used to shooting JPG. It was that or > use SilkyPix. :-) > > --Peter > > > >> I have the XE-1 on my list, and also noted that. Seems strange that he >> would settle for an in-camera jpg conversion. >> >> Ken >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org >> [mailto:lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > Bob >> Adler >> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 5:56 PM >> To: Leica Users Group >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Fuji XE-1 >> >> Except he doesn't shoot raw! >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 4, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Nice review: >>> >>> >> > http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/06/fuji- > x-e1-the-keeper.html > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/