RE: [Leica] 1Ds digital results

["bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Robert -
1. Off 100 people viewing a shot of a horse race, how many do you think
have ever noticed the "fine stitching" in the jockey's jackets? For that
matter, of 100 photographers shooting such a scene, how many know - or
care - that the detail is there until they look at a huge enlargement?
Bottom line - does the digital capture the scene? Does it capture the
color "accurately?" Does it capture light and shadow? Does it capture
the action? Does it give the same impression, when viewed from a normal
viewing distance, that film does? After all, NO ONE is looking at such a
photo with a loupe other than someone trying to see what fine detail the
film was capable of resolving.

2. You've got to be kidding when you say the digital workflow takes
longer than the film workflow. 
"I develop them by machine, edit on a light table and 
throw out the rejects.  I can view a slide in a few seconds using a 
loupe.  Opening a file, closing it and then deleting it probably
averages 
to ten or fifteen seconds each file."

So you're saying you take a processing machine to the venue? And wait
how long for the slides to be processed, dried, and mounted before you
throw them on the light table - that you also took to the venue? As
opposed to the "ten to fifteen seconds" it "probably averages" to view
each digital image and decide if it's a keeper - which can be done on
the camera if one is so inclined. And if one isn't, it's sure easier
carrying a laptop to the race track than it is transporting a slide
processing outfit, film drier, mounts, and a lightbox. And then,
assuming that you want to make some color or white balance adjustments
in those slides you've thrown on the lightbox, how do you do it - unless
you're printing - and how long does it take?

Come on. If you want to say that you think film is superior because it
captures that fine detail - and you have a need for that fine detail -
okay. If you want to say you prefer the latitude film gives you, okay.
If you want to say that you prefer to use your Leicas and Leica glass,
and that you can't use them to shoot digitally, fine. But don't claim
that shooting digitally slows people down - because it just ain't so.
:-)

B. D.
Still shooting film.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Robert G.
Stevens
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:57 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] 1Ds digital results


At 12:29 PM 12/15/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Wilfred,
>
> > White balance and overall color fidelity is often
> > superior to film in good digital cameras,
>
>I believe you are misusing the word "fidelity".  Fidelity means 
>"accuracy of reproduction".  It is physically impossible for digital 
>cameras using Bayer pattern sensors to have higher "fidelity" than film

>(unless they have a LOT of sensors, and 11M sensors doesn't come 
>close), simply because of the color interpolation that happens due to 
>the Bayer pattern sensor.

I have noticed that images shot with digital seem to be missing some of
the 
finer detail captured on slide film.  I am assuming it is this color 
interpolation doing it.  I borrowed an EOS 1D to shoot some hockey this 
weekend.  When shot at 400asa the details in the material of the jerseys

seem to be missing.  Using the same lens,  E200 pushed to EI 400 seems
to 
capture more details in the Jerseys, such as the fine stiching.  It is 
really noticable with the red jerseys.

Look at the sample image on the EOS 1D web page.  In the Jockey picture
the 
red jersey has no detail, just a blob of red.  Its a big tiff file and 
takes a while to download.

http://www.usa.canon.com/EOS-1D/sample.html

I would also argue that digital adds a lot to the work flow for somebody

that is not on a tight deadline.  Shooting at 8fps and high quality
creates 
a lot of files that take a lot of time to open and decide whether to
delete 
or keep.  With slides, I develop them by machine, edit on a light table
and 
throw out the rejects.  I can view a slide in a few seconds using a 
loupe.  Opening a file, closing it and then deleting it probably
averages 
to ten or fifteen seconds each file.

Not to mention dragging a laptop to the venue to download the images and

start some of the editing.  One more thing to carry.

Regards,

Robert




>Now, the color may LOOK better/cleaner etc. to some, but that is not 
>something you can attribute to "fidelity".
>
> > Negative film can still capture a wider range of light than any 
> > non-scanning digital sensor I've seen or read about thus far.
>
>Hum.  What are the ranges you are seeing?  My information shows they 
>are equal, with an edge on digital, especially for color.  For B&W, 
>they are the same, pretty much, but you have to use compression and 
>compensating development to get that many stops on the film...but it is

>do-able.
>
>Regards,
>
>Austin
>
>--
>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

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