Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/04

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Photos
From: "B. D. Colen" <>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 15:49:34 -0400

Well, I'll tell you Don - you wouldn't be able to pick them out if they were
silver gelatin 11x14s.....16x20s, perhaps

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of
> Sent: Sunday, July 04, 1999 3:28 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Photos
> In a message dated 7/4/99 1:07:34 PM Central Daylight Time,
> writes:
> <<
>  By the way - Dr. Blacktape has issues a challenge, and wonders
> if any LUGers
>  can pick out the few photos taken with a Nikkor 105 2.5 and a Canon SM 35
>  2.8 Serenar, rather than with M glass. Most of the photos were taken with
>  the 35 Summilux ASPH and the 21 pre-ASPH. All were taken on XP2 Super and
>  scanned with an HP PhotoSmart. >>
> These are wonderful snapshots of the family but I have to agree with Dr.
> Blacktape that the quality of the web prints is just that "web
> prints."  The
> web just destroys the true quality that Leica or any other camera system
> provides.  It is nice to be able to transmit photos over the wire but the
> quality is destroyed and Brownie box camera quality is what
> results.  I could
> not even find an eyelash or hair in the photos that I examined.
> What should
> have been detail was just a blob.  Kind of like looking at a tree
> from a few
> hundred yards away.  No leaves, just a blob.
> I am presently checking out my 21 mm ASPH, 35 mm Summicron ASPH
> and 135 mm
> APO, and the negatives really look good but they were shots of
> high contrast
> subjects, in bright light, with EFKE KB 25 and Tech Pan from a
> solid tripod
> and then processed in T.E.C. or a Willi Beutler derivative for
> sharpness.
> For comparison purposes, the prints would be enlarged through an
> APO Rodagon
> or Componon and laid side-by-side for a a close look.  Then an
> opinion could
> be formed.

Sure sound like real life conditions for 99 percent of professional
shooters, particularly PJs...;-)

> I am sure that the negatives of the family show many times more
> detail than
> is exhibited in on the monitor.  Still not sure hand held action shots
> provide enough quality to allow a distinction to be made between
> Leica, Nikon
> and Canon prints.

And given that most of us take handheld action shots, given that virtually
all photo journalism is "hand held action shots," given that HCB and W.
Eugene Smith, and Capa, etc. etc. etc., took "handheld action shots," I
guess we have you making an interesting point here...;-)

> Thanks for sharing the nice shots.