Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 08:10 AM 4/8/98 +0200, you wrote: > > that is not the point: any SLR based digital camera can provide those at > a more than sufficient quality level for Web publishing. But they do not > (yet) have any price advantage on the emulsion. Some of the pictures on > site would require using 800 ISO film with a Stylus Epic at f2.8, again > with a level of WEB quality and relevance comparable to 400 ISO with an > Asph lens at f2. Though that is true, in one sense, I think to separate cameras by how good they look on the web is deceptive. There is no way the tonal modulation of my stained glass pictures would come through with a Stylus Epic and ISO 800 film. Maybe you need to calibrate your monitor, but there is no digital camera, except maybe the Leica S1, Leaf (or one of the other high end ones that cost $30,000) that could match the tones in those pictures, even on the web. I know, I use a $14,000 (now $10,000) digital camera at work, and I know what its pictures look like. In ideal situations, it's darn close to film as long as you don't crop it much. But that's it. Film still outdoes it. And if you can't see the difference on the web, well, I won't argue that you can or can't. But I surely can. I think you make too strong a point based on belief, rather than results. The Web is what it is, and people know what it is. They don't expect the detail in a picture on the Web. But that's only part of a pictures communicative qualities. I didn't expect anyone to go out and buy a 180 Elmarit based on those pictures, but they are beautiful pieces of art that people can see. And some of the quality of the images come through just fine. That's what matters. Bokeh, no, probably not in most cases. Curvature of field? Shoot, show that in an 11x14 on the wall. Some people won't see it. Fine detail? Nope, you're right on that point. But the tonal modulation comes through. At least on my monitor. Computer monitors are more like slides projected on the screen, whereas prints are not as "bright." We have to remember that when we tone our pictures at work for publication, or for the Web. The Web will never replace books in my lifetime, or magazines. There aren't enough people who use it and won't for some time to come. I don't feel threatened by it, because I know my audience. (Here at my newspaper). ========== Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch Today's subliminal thought is...