Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2021/06/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Paul, I might add that the largest print I have ever got printed and sold was a 40"x60" rendition on canvas (to reduce weight) to the Chennai Metro Authority, for display in one of their stations dedicated to local artists and photographers depicting local life, was taken with a Fuji XPro1 and the kit lens, at ISO 4000. It worked very well, and was still hanging in the station before the pandemic: http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/jayanand/album254/Mylapore/_DSF3476.jpg.html I have probably sold 25-30 prints of this, in various sizes, because of the exhibit - which any commuter can get close to if they wish! I realized that nobody cares about precise sharpness, visible noise etc, if the overall photograph tells a valid story. Cheers Jayanand On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:46 AM Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> wrote: > Weight is a different factor altogether. All my Nikon telephotos up to > 500mm are those I can hand hold, because I miss fewer shots that way. To me > a lens which is a stop slower is an acceptable compromise to getting more > keepers, but as ever, YMMV! > > The new "Enhance" function in PS and Lightroom is almost as good as Topaz > Gigapixel. I bought Gigapixel some time ago, but I would not buy it today, > for the same reason as choosing lenses - though Gigapixel is undoubtedly a > tad superior when I am pixel peeping, there is no discernible difference on > a print, more so at normal viewing distances. I agree 100% with you, > though, that modern software negates a lot of the preconceptions that we > have been carrying around, and that giving many of these a trial run is a > worthwhile activity. > > Cheers > Jayanand > > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:01 AM Paul Roark via LUG <lug at leica-users.org> > wrote: > >> I am also a hiker. So I consider size and weight. The Leica 135 at 4 1/4 >> inches and 478 grams is much nicer to carry than the Canon zoom at 6 1/2 >> inches and 787 grams. So, if I can capture more information with less >> size >> and weight, that counts, big time. >> >> As to the importance of sharpness, my first one person show (in about >> 1981) >> was, in effect, a market test. While the people loved the color I was >> doing, I regularly saw people walking up close to the prints and then >> backing off. The sharpness of those (original 35mm slides) was not, in my >> view, good enough for gallery display. (Though I was proud to sell one to >> Elizabeth Taylor's mother, and the entire show ultimately sold for >> corporate decor -- which was not really my target.) For large, wall >> display prints, 35mm film was simply not going to do the job. Hasselblads >> ruled that segment for a reason, and as a result of this original show and >> the feedback I received, I bought a Rollei SL66, which was up to the >> standards that were expected. After the show in Palm Springs, it turned >> into a traveling show through the greater Los Angeles area. By that time >> I >> had just a few black and white prints that were taken with the SL66. I >> grew up with a darkroom (my Dad's buddy was Todd Walker), so doing B&W was >> easy for me. In the L.A. show, which was in the lobby of, I believe, what >> was then called the Bonaventure, the new medium format B&W prints were all >> stolen. None of the color prints were stolen. That was great feedback. >> Sharp B&W became my target/main medium. >> >> Although I started to experiment with digital image capture early in the >> transition, the Leica M9 was really the turning point for me. MF film and >> the Rollei SL66 became relics from the past (though the SL66 holds a >> special place in my heart and is in a display case in my home now). >> >> I "sat" at Gallery Los Olivos today. One of the prints on display was my >> "Pompeii Basilica to Mt. Vesuvius." (See >> https://www.paulroark.com/Italy.html and scroll down.) Even though the >> print is very large, people still walk up to it and check out the details. >> So do I. >> >> So, while it's probably not true for all people and styles, for what I do, >> sharpness matters -- but so does ability to comfortably carry the >> equipment. My simple testing of lenses by shooting the distant top of the >> Santa Inez mountains between where I live and Santa Barbara, has been a >> significant and easy part of what I do that, I'm convinced, has played a >> significant role in my ability to find the equipment and software that >> helps me sell my prints and enjoy doing photography. >> >> I might add that we may now be at a transition point in terms of software. >> At least for people like me, Topaz's AI Gigapixel is a quantum leap over >> PS >> sharpening. It's the first example I have any experience with that >> suggests "artificial intelligence" may be more than hype and BS. It's >> just >> another tool, but it's quickly become one I regularly use. If you like >> sharp images, you really ought to check it out. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Paul >> www.PaulRoark.com >> .............................................. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:15 AM Ken Iisaka <ken at iisaka.com> wrote: >> >> > The sad truth is that not all the pixels end up in the final print. >> > >> > What I've always enjoyed about making large prints in a darkroom is >> that I >> > could make prints which could be enjoyed both up close and from a more >> > "normal" viewing distance. >> > >> > However, I've had several 24x36" (60x90cm) prints made from images >> captured >> > on SL2 and Q2 recently. Invariably, I see that the printing resolution >> is >> > in the order of 100 dpi or even less, that only about 8mp of information >> > ends up on the print. When viewed up close, all the details in the >> original >> > image files are lost. >> > >> > I'd like to know which printers would not downscale the image to an >> > artificially low dpi. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 09:37, Jayanand Govindaraj via LUG < >> > lug at leica-users.org> wrote: >> > >> > > IMHO, image quality matters to the extent it is discernible on a print >> > of a >> > > size you want to show/exhibit, whatever, at normal viewing distances. >> > > Beyond that it means nothing. If you are not exhibiting/selling prints >> > of a >> > > size equal to a 300% magnification on the monitor, taking normal >> viewing >> > > distances into account, because these are definitely not going to be >> > viewed >> > > from 12-15 inches away, why bother? >> > > >> > > Cheers >> > > Jayanand >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 7:40 PM Paul Roark via LUG < >> lug at leica-users.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Jayanand wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > How will you ever make out that level of difference in a print of >> any >> > > > size? >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Note that the magnifications of the prints are different. >> > > > >> > > > If image quality doesn't matter, why does Leica exist? >> > > > >> > > > Paul >> > > > www.PaulRoark.com >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:02 AM Paul Roark via LUG < >> > lug at leica-users.org >> > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > I posted a same-size screen grab of the Leica 135 and Canon 200 >> at >> > > > > > >> > https://www.paulroark.com/Leica-apo-135-v-Canon-L-70-200-at-200.JPG >> > > . >> > > > > > >> > > > > > They look very similar, but I think the ridge line of the 135 M >> > has a >> > > > > > slight advantage. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Paul >> > > > > > www.PaulRoark.com >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 8:59 AM Sonny Carter via LUG < >> > > > > lug at leica-users.org> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > pix? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regards, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Sonny >> > > > > > > http://sonc.com <http://sonc.com/look/> >> > > > > > > Natchitoches, Louisiana >> > > > > > > 1714 >> > > > > > > Oldest Permanent Settlement in the Louisiana Purchase >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > USA >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 10:57 AM Paul Roark via LUG < >> > > > > lug at leica-users.org >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I thought this group would appreciate the results of this >> > > telephoto >> > > > > > > > comparison test. The question was, between my Canon 70 - >> 200 >> > > f/4 L >> > > > > > > series >> > > > > > > > lens at 200mm and my Leica 135mm, which could actually >> render >> > > > distant >> > > > > > > > details the best. Both were on a Sony a7c. The Leica 135 >> won. >> > > > And >> > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > was at optimum apertures and center. Off axis and wide open >> > the >> > > > > > > > differences would be more pronounced. (The Canon zoom will >> > soon >> > > > be >> > > > > on >> > > > > > > > eBay.) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Paul >> > > > > > > > www.PaulRoark.com >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > > > > 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 >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > 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 >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Ken Iisaka >> > first name at last name dot org or com >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> >