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: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:58:06 -0400

I KNOW that you can't possibly be suggesting that the media used to capture
images formed by light passing through a lens accounts for your M images
being "more emotional." ;-)

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of David
Rodgers
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:40 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: Vs: [Leica] Digital vs Film


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

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

Replies: Reply from Brian Reid <reid@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> (RE: Vs: [Leica] Digital vs Film)