Re: [Leica] Would you start a wet darkroom today?

["Henning J. Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

At 7:30 PM -0400 10/26/00, Paul Chefurka wrote:
>On 26 Oct 2000 15:37:29 -0700, ken@iisaka.org wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 October 2000, Paul Chefurka wrote:
>>>  Two months ago I'd have disagreed vehemently with this.  Today, after
>>>  reading Michael Reichmann's comparison of the output of a Canon D30 to an
>>>  EOS shooting Provia 100F, I'm inclined to think it's going to happen a lot
>>>  sooner than most of us think.
>>
>>After reading the article, I could not help but notice some flaws 
>>in his experiment.
>
>OK, but methodological quibbles aside, the fact that he was able to create
>output from a D30 that looked better than Provia 100F scanned with 
>an Imacon has
>to mean something, no?
>
>Whether or not the D30 itself is the harbinger of some digital 
>utopia, it's sure
>a signpost on the road.  And I'm inclined to believe the evidence of my eyes -
>even in the Web images the D30 was better.  And if a print looks better, it is
>better as far as I'm concerned.
>
>Paul

Basically, I have to agree with that. If it looks right, it is right, 
because if there is one area where this phrase applies, it is 
photography:

          If it looks good, it is good.

It's just that 3"x4" web images pretty much define the lowest common 
denominator. Judging his assertions based on the web images doesn't 
do it for me. He stated that everyone agreed with him that the D30 
images were 'better'. Lacking other evidence, I would have to accept 
his conclusion, but not based on the web images.

Erwin's assertion come to mind here. If you're not using fine grain 
film, camera on a tripod, etc., you're not getting the most out of 
the lenses.

Reichman's methodology introduces enough factors to degrade the 
Provia film's capabilities down to the level where the outcome of the 
test is a toss-up. This is not, after all, a test of the D30's 
imaging chip vs. Provia F, but a test of the D30 system, including 
lens (I have this lens, and while a decent performer, it is certainly 
not the best at any focal length), possible camera shake, 
camera/computer algorithms of various sorts, third party computer 
manipulations, printer driver/ink/paper conditions vs. similar 
conditions with the film path. There are scanner profiles, 
resolution/noise issues etc. The Imacon is good, and may be better 
than what most people use, but the assertion that therefore the film 
is not as good is silly, as the scanner is probably a lot less 
capable link in the chain than the film. Again, the computer 
manipulations, profiles, etc will reduce and change the output.

Color purity is asserted to be better with the D30 than with film, 
but again way too many intermediate steps are introduced to come to 
this conclusion, and besides, he relies on his memory of what the 
shot should look like. Not a good basis for color comparison. He, 
however, likes the results better, so he's right.

What he has shown, is that for his standards and his conditions, the 
D30 does a better job than film. That we'll have to accept. The 
conclusion that he draws from this; that the D30 is better than 
Provia, isn't close being proven.

What this shows is that the digital cameras can now compete not only 
for P&S stuff, but also at a certain practical level of 35mm 
'serious' work. And the film processing costs are a lot lower. Just 
don't count the 6-12mo. obsolescence of most of his equipment. You 
can still buy a lot of film for that.

- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com