Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]the funniest thing about this thread is the sound of sticks remaining in mud as though the idea of a digital M threatened the sticks in some way I personally have seen digital shots which are superior in some respects to film shots at moderate enlargements. Better color, better grain, better latitude. I have seen digital shots that resembled nothing more that large format, shot on a sub $1000 camera. I have seen digital shots shot in low light that showed a color rendition that was quite breathtaking and would quite impossible on reversal film because of contrast problems. And I am a silver junkie! I look forward to the day when I do not *have* to process film and scan it. I still *may* process my film because I want the look. But don't be fooled into thinking that digital has a 'digital' look. Those who are in the air about all this might like to check out Michael Reichmann's site at http://www.luminous-landscape.com and read his opinions of the D30. Michael's conclusions raised a storm when he first published them. However, I had lunch with him a couple of weeks ago and he showed me some of the prints in question, along with other work he had shot on conventional 100 iso film. (I have seen others at Vistek in Toronto). At moderate enlargements, the digital shots were indistinguishable. In some respects better. Note: the D30 is NOT a high resolution camera. Not good enough, personally, for me because of the enlargement problem and the small CCD. But it is *so* close. Can the bumblebee fly? Do you ask an engineer, or watch the bee? - -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com ICQ: 109343205