Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/10/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Austin, I did not make the claims. I don't own the high-end digital equipment. I simply included the quote and link to the list for those who may like to hear from some folks who actually use the $18k - $30k gear on a daily basis and stake their reputations on the performance, and at this moment they are discussing the new Kodak 14kpix and Canon 11kpix and how they do or may compare to their "high-end" stuff. Obviously these discussions often have the depth of content of a political "sound bite". Lots of opinion and mixed metaphors, differences of opinion on definitions, et al. However, clearly - every four to six months serious price drops occur and quality increases. Austin Franklindarkroom@ix.netcom.com (Austin Franklin)10/1/025:07 PM >Dynamic range is not necessarily better in all circumstances. You can get >comparable dynamic range from film, you just have to know how...and you also >have to know how with digital too. It just doesn't come automatically. of course, both technologies require professional control for professional results. >Color fidelity is dubious. You can adjust the color fidelity of film same >as you can digital, so I don't see how that claim holds. Having followed the ProRental list for a number of years - I'd venture a guess that they're refering to seeing results, on tightly calibrated systems, which more closely "match" the "products" with greater ease. After all that has been the commercial shooter's goal for many decades, and in the case of the portraitist the elusive "skin tone". Having spent a good deal of my commercial career trying get film to see the scene "faithfully" - and finding this film can get the reds but blows the blues and blue-greens, and that film gets the blues but blows the reds and the greens, etc ad nauseum. Not to mention when you calibrate and test the film and find that the lab just changed their chemistry over the weekend. But I digress, that was a long time ago now. >As far as sharpness goes, yes, digital can be perceived as being much >sharper, but is that reality? I think the eye/mind/untrained eye perceives >sharpness with loss of detail better than something that isn't as sharp >(though possibly more true to life BTW) but has higher detail. It's like >looking at lithographs...they have high sharpness, but no detail. No doubt true. However again these folks invest heavily in equipment which provide results that sell to their clients, the largest buyers of photography in the market. >> especially when using >> dedicated digital lenses. Well Schneider and Rodenstock both make lenses which they "claim" they designed specifically for the "high-end" digital camera backs and their users. And the users "claim" that they see an increase in quality, from their backs, when comparing these lenses to similar focal length lenses designed with film in mind. I have no reason to doubt either claims. However these guys do not argue about the difference between sharpness and resolution (which I enjoy btw); they simply report on professional, commercial "results" which they need to satisfy the most critical photo buyers on the planet. I read these reports to keep up with the tech and learn the language. I take it all in and consider the information in total. I consider your point of view and I consider their point of view. And I suspect that, as usual, between any extreme opinions one may find a sense of something close to truth. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html