Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/08[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
On Wednesday, April 08, 1998 2:41 PM, Eric Welch [SMTP:email@example.com] wrote: > There is no way the tonal modulation of my > stained glass pictures would come through with a Stylus Epic and ISO 800 film. I know that of course: in the 'normal' photography world, your images of the stained glass shot through the 180mm f2.8 will most probably be very spectacular. Especially as projected slides, but also if you produce a nice glossy enlargement, or even get if you get them printed in a good quality magazine. They will be radically better than similar shots through a good P/S and ISO 800 film. I repeat this is not the case with my Web experiences. > 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. We could do blind tests. Please check the CoolPix 900 info page on the Nikon site: some of the pictures there could serve as propaganda for Leica glass and high quality film. They are just plain perfect. On the Web. try this: http://www.nikonusa.com/products/imaging/images/moosebird.jpg > 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. That is true. I would not use them as showcase for Leica but as an example of fine church art within the framework of a series dedicated to such topics. > 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." My monitor at home is the standard semi-crappy 15" thing most people get with their PC. My graphic card only allows 64000 colours at 800 x 600. I get 24-bit at the office though.Your JPEG compressions are destructive and larger pictures would take too long to download. I think this is an average Web experience. The more I look at it, the more I believe black and white is better suited for Web scrutinity than colour. Well, I'm packing my bags, my M6 + 21/35/50/90 and no notebook. Flying of to Marrakesh on Saturday, and shall check out real life colours :-) Might (or might not) try to share them with you through the Web. Friendly regards, Alan Brussels-Belgium.