Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/07

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Non-Leica photos: Rethinking digital
From: Jim Hemenway <Jim@hemenway.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 20:42:42 -0400
References: <20030407060147.63379.qmail@web14407.mail.yahoo.com>

Jeff:

These look a little soft.  Are you using a hot mirror filter to control
infrared intrusion?  I have a monster DCS460 and found that a hot mirror
filter is essential in getting sharper and flare free photos with it.

My daughter is on vacation while her house, (it's actually haunted as
you will see) is being re-shingled.

I took these yesterday with the DCS460 and with the hot mirror filter to
show her the progress by email.
http://www.hemenway.com/VinalApr6th/

- -- 

Jim - http://www.hemenway.com



Jeff S wrote:
> 
> For years I've been interested in the fine-art
> potential of digital cameras, and now that I've got an
> ancient Kodak/Nikon DCS200 DSLR offering full manual
> control of focus and exposure, things have gotten a
> bit more interesting! Here are a couple of photos:
> 
> http://www.boulder.net/~4season/20030403.html
> 
> Since the color rendition of this DCS200 is IMO pretty
> ugly, I'm treating it as a black-and-white camera, and
> I'm using conventional (optical) filtration to get the
> desired results. My goal is maximize in-camera results
> and make only relatively minor adjustments afterwards.
> So far I haven't found a way to duplicate N- and N+
> contrast control, and these early digital cameras
> surely could've benefitted from N- "processing" at
> times: Contrastier than transparency film, with no
> tolerance to overexposure.
> 
> FWIW, using the DCS200 (a stock Nikon 8008s with
> digital back) has convinced me that grafting a digital
> back onto a film camera is kludgey: Far better, I
> think, to design it as a digital camera from the
> outset and avoid the hassles of having separate
> batteries for camera body and digital back, or wasting
> space on a film transport that's never going to
> transport any film. Having a sub-sub-24x36mm imager is
> also a pain because the "normal" lenses end up being
> closer to 20mm, so unless you decend to
> gaussian-blurring Photoshop whoredom, shallow depth of
> field becomes an endangered species.
> 
> Jeff S
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
> --
> 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

In reply to: Message from Jeff S <four_season_photo@yahoo.com> ([Leica] Non-Leica photos: Rethinking digital)