Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/30

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

Subject: RE: Vs: [Leica] Digital vs Film
From: David Rodgers <davrod@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:40:28 -0700
References: <NABBLIJOIFAICKBIEPJJAEAOPOAA.darkroom@ix.netcom.com> <MBBBJHIBKCKEAEOKKBPOIEEMDHAA.bdcolen@earthlink.net>

I shot both digital (G2) and a Leica M at a friends house last week. The 
Leica M images were far and away more emotional.  Here's a shot of one of 
the children taken with the 35/1.4 ASPH.

http://www.lightcurves.com/portraits/port4.htm

I scanned the HP5+ neg scanned on a Leafscan. The file was a whopping 4000 
x 5600 pixels with excellent tonality. I upsampled slightly with GF and 
printed 12x18 on Somerset Enhanced Photo Velvet using Piezography. 
The  print looked very "film-like".

A Leica image is like a hand written letter. You can send the same words in 
an e-mail as you can on paper. But a hand written letter has a personal 
touch that's difficult to duplicate digitally.

FWIW, digital = e-mail; modern AF SLR = electric typewriter; Leica M = 
quill and paper. Each has it's place.

Dave

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from David Rodgers <davrod@worldnet.att.net> (RE: Vs: [Leica] Digital vs Film)
In reply to: Message from "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> (RE: Vs: [Leica] Digital vs Film)
Message from "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> (RE: Vs: [Leica] Digital vs Film)