Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Look, guys, this thread is interesting enough, but at one time, first year photo students had knowledge of a few points (yes, Will, a "list" follows: 1. With 'realworld' films (this qualification necessary for Erwin, etc), and 'real world' handling (35mm in hand, 4x5 on tripod, 21/4 sometimes either) virtually ANY 2-1/4 camera will out-do the finest 35mm camera...yes, I mean a l955 Kodak Tourist, in perfect working order, on a tripod with verichrome pan film, at f-16, and a hood, will kick your Leica's ass. Period. (6x9cm negative) 2. Same conditions as above, that old Crown Graphic with it's (clean) Optar, will generally outdo the Hasselblad, Rollei, etc... 3. The "quality" of a photograph has little to do with it's absolute sharpness, and of course color rendition/contrast/freedom from flare is TOTALLY subjective... Give me a Smith/Capa/even HCB(!) anyday over the product of some anal-retentive "zone-ite" with his goddamn Linhof/Schneider/T-max100/Zone IV/Range-Rover/$2000 VC Head enlarger mounted on the requisite cubic yard of Granite..... 4. There seems to be little knowledge of "the tool for the job" today...hence the popularity of the "shift" lenses, etc.... Seriously, folks....the next time you run across a vintage "Box"....yashica, kodak, ciroflex, god-knows-what, buy it....shoot it...at f11 on a tripod...print full frame on 11x14 paper....compare it to an identical print under identical circumstances from your latest Leica ASPH-whatever.... The whole reason for using 35mm has been lost in these never-ending "quality" discussions.... Interesting story....A photographer friend of mine (yeah, he's famous but ya don't need to know) recently tried to get a "poor" lens for his 4x5.....I suggested a home-brew single element device, and he bought a bunch of meniscus lenses from Edmund scientific.....6-8" focal length, used 'em 'wide-open', about f 8 or so... ya know what? He not only DIDN"T get the effect he wanted, he laughed and said he could hardly tell the difference in the meniscus and his Schneider!!! Yes, it's a true story. Walt On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:05:33 -0700 Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> wrote: > Matthews Brian wrote: > > > > I'd be interested in how you feel about 16X20 prints from Leica versus > > Hblad, all films etc being equal. Also, what films would tend to minimize > > the grain and resolution differences between the two systems. > > Despite what the Leica Rep. used to say. The Image a I get from the Hblad (nice > abreave.!) are noticeably better at 16 by 20 with the same film then with even > the Leica at 35mm. It just doesn't matter how great a lens is we are talking > real estate. And if a lens really could make that much a difference which in an > ultra extreme example we are starting out with Zeiss. And if you think they are > beatable or not they are not going to be beatabel by much. > > Using slow film in the comparison test might minimize the differences because > although you are staring at the full resolution of both systems. If they are > both virtually grainless that is the biggest thing that pops out at you: the > grain. No grain, no big thing pops out at you. But a larger format looks richer > and smoother as well as sharper that there is a highlight creaminess which is > really evident as you step up into Brownie film and then sheet film. > > But this issue is: do you have a shot to print? > I just did a job in which the client picked 3 images from the Leica Contact > sheet. The two sheets shot with the Hblad were too "stiff." I should have blown > one up anyway although they were 8 by 10's to see that difference as I shot TriX > 400 with both and souped both in the same tank at the same time in Xtol. > I think I will tomorrow. > > Mark Rabiner