Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2020/02/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi all, Thank you very much for looking and for your interesting comments, I think firtsly we we have consider we are watching an image in a Monitor, not printed. The digital images looks clean and even generally better in a montor than a image from film. Right now I would like compare these images once printed, everyone according his own media, I think that for my preferences I would like more the darkroom image, these are simply different, and finally is a personal choose. The Monochrom is able to give great images but actually I?m not printing any more inkjet, I work in the darkroom and I like better the rendition I obtain with wet prints than laserjet prints, in my opinion the monitor don?t give an exact idea about how will be the image once printed, generally I do my copies with Ilford FB Variocontrast 11x14 paper, enlarging with the technique of Split Grade, it can give IMHO a larger tonality and manage better the contrast than with traditional filters. About the cost, this is a diffrent discussion. Cheers Lluis > El 25 febr 2020, a les 20:07, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> va > escriure: > > I agree with Howard and Tina and others on the superior Leica Monochrom so > called results but I think if we shot film and printed it in our darkroom > or had a custom print made we'd know what we were looking at. A small > machine print otherwise known as a snapshot we don?t. A snapshot printed > for pennies untouched by human hands tells you little or nothing about > what the 6 thousand dollar lens you have on your 6 thousand dollar camera > is capable of normally doing so lets not delve into the subtleties of > output. > Night shooting now is no wide open capturing a thin sliver wide open at > squeeze and pray shutter speeds kind of deal. > We?re now both capturing action and getting plenty of depth of field; > both. > A handheld digital shooter shoots the pants off of someone shooting film > Noctilux or not it?s not even remotely close. We?ve left them many many > stops behind. Many. Both f and shutter. > A reason to be suspicious of film to digital comparisons which talk about > in nebulous terms how film has more je ne sais quoi smirk smirk is the > fact that close to none of the serious shooters out there have not long > ago sold their film cameras and never looked back. The "big film > resurgence" is a Fig Newton of someone's well-paid PR hack imagination. > I?d shot film at night for decades but by mid 2001 started shooting bricks > of Neopan 1600 with an f1 Noctilux M I had just bought which never came > off my M6 and developing and printing the results in my darkroom mainly > 11x14?s and a fair amount of 16x20?s. > Was really way better than Tri X with an f1.4 but by 2004 digital hit it > big and was way, way, way, better. > I think the hair thin depth of field effect has limited use I shoot wide > open once in a blue new moon. > It?s f ISO12,500 and be there for me with my D750 Nikon a camera in low > light which is feeling its age as I am. I?m sure ISO12,500 has been left > far in the dust by the newer generation of cameras in the past few years > I'd not mind shooting with.. > > -- > Mark William Rabiner > > ?On 2/25/20, 8:19 AM, "LUG on behalf of Tina Manley via LUG" > <lug-bounces+mark=rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of lug at > leica-users.org> wrote: > > I agree with Howard. > > Tina > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:09 PM Howard L Ritter Jr via LUG < > lug at leica-users.org> wrote: > >> Lluis, I have just the opposite reaction. I think the MM image is superior >> in just about every way. To me, the film image looks like a flat image >> that >> has been recorded on a flat surface, like I?m looking at a piece of film, >> while the MM image has smoothness, richness of dynamic range, contrast, >> and >> depth, like I?m looking through it into reality. >> >> Of course, this impression has nothing to do with the fact that I love my >> own MM? >> >> ?howard >> >>> On Feb 24, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Lluis Ripoll via LUG <lug at >>> leica-users.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> These ones are with Leica MP, Noctilux wide open, film Ilford HP5 rated >> at nominal ISO 400, developed with D23 1:1 >>> >>> Diana (3) >>> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Portraits/2020F020209.jpg.html> >>> >>> Diana (4) >>> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Portraits/2020F020211.jpg.html> >>> >>> Please compare Diana (4) with this one Diana (1) with the Leica >> Monochrom CCD, Noctilux f1 wide open, at ISO 1600 >>> >>> < >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Portraits/20200213_L1020137.jpg.html >>> >>> >>> I think that film?s structure or texture gives despite a very small >> grain, more relief to the portrait, it looks to me more alive?. What do >> you >> think? >>> >>> Thanks for looking, your c&c are welcome >>> >>> Saludos cordiales >>> Lluis >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > > -- > Tina Manley > www.tinamanley.com > http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley > > <http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/3B49552F-90A0-4D0A-A11D-2175C937AA91/Tina+Manley.html> > > _______________________________________________ > 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