Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 07:19 PM 8/30/97 -0400, you wrote: >difference (but I can't seem to find them with my own negatives), but I >stick to my original assertion, that the statement " 'dirty & scratched >glass, dented rim' Leica offers better images than a Minolta" makes no >sense, and is undemonstratable in practice Yes, but there is a "look" to Leica pictures. I saw it in National Geographic when Robert Magubane (whom I didn't know from Adam when I saw the pictures) did an essay on South Africa. Given these are the best engravers in the world, it's likely not to be so obvious in most magazines, but the color rendition, and the modulation of tones have become familiar to me. I know the look. Has nothing to do with sharpness. It's one reason I bought Leica in the first place. What I saw, not what people told me I'd see. - --------------------- Eric Welch Grants Pass, OR Stack Overflow: Too many pancakes