Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/06/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 06/29/03 6:14 PM, Austin Franklin at darkroom@ix.netcom.com wrote: > You weren't paying attention there, Eric. That was said sarcastically...of > course I can get excellent results from a 6M Bayer pattern sensor...that's > one of the things I DO... Well, one of the thing I've learned over the years, is that equipment-oriented people don't necessarily know how to make good photographs. So knowing hardware has little to do with taste, knowledge of how to get the best reproduction in pre-press, or a scad of other issues besides literal translation of pixels or grain in print/reproduction. > A TWO pixel camera is as sharp as you can possibly get...so really, > sharpness is simply not relevant to the fidelity of the image. Do not hang > your hat on "sharpness", it is a manufactured property, and in fact, shows > lower fidelity (accuracy of reproduction). Anyone who knows me would tell you I've been singing that mantra for years. So what's your point? > Because it IS called a Bayer pattern sensor when it has an RGBG filter over > the sensing elements, which provides %50 green, %25 red and %25 blue > information...and that information is interpolated to give you 6M pixels. > The sensors them selves are 6M SENSORS, not pixels. Again, you missed my point. Calling it a Bayer pattern sensor means diddly squat to someone outside your field. It's pompous to throw out such techno jargon without explaining it. > >> Who >> knows that that means besides people who spend too much time on >> digicam web >> sites? > > Who knows? People like me who design these things! Um, yeah, my point exactly. > Yeah, but you don't, do you? Nope, I just spend about $250,000 a year licensing photos from Fred Ward to the Queen of England. And I shoot several thousand images a year as well when I can't find them elsewhere. Covering such a limited topic requires me to shoot such things as flame fusion rubies under long wave ultraviolet light to see how they fluoresce. And the color has to be accurate. > And...not many people do. You seem to miss > the point here, Eric. I never said digital doesn't have it's place, in fact > I am one of the proponents OF digital, but the issue is it's NOT better than > film in every application, and IS better than film in SOME applications. > People WANT digital to be "better" than it is, and it isn't. It is what it > is, and it IS, SOMETIMES, the right tool for the job. And I did? No, I did not. YOU missed what I was saying. I've said it elsewhere recently, so I won't go over it again. I NEVER said digital was always better. But in some things it certainly is. >> Scanners cannot remove completely a bad drift of color in unusual light. > > Why not? Because they can't, without distorting the colors in the film so much that it has no resemblance to reality. Just like shadow detail can only be rescued if there's something there, so it's the same with color. If the color balance is too far off, a scaner isn't going to save it. But if a digital camera is white-balanced, it is more capable of film of giving neutral tones. You can filter a lens and do the same, but then you've lost light and decreased sharpness. Trade-offs no matter which path one chooses. I choose the white balance benefits of digital when I shoot in funky light. >> With a Nikon 4000ED scanner, you can't fix the color in many situations. >> Maybe with some more high-end scanners that are a lot more money than the >> $5,000 you mention. > > The scanner has nothing to do with it. It most certainly does. And if you don't know that, then I wonder about the rest of your expertise. >> When I shot a Leica microscope we sell - which is painted black >> and white - >> with our D60, the color is so neutral you could mistake the photo for a >> black and white image except for the red Leica logo. Film can't touch >> digital period for shooting in other than daylight. > > That's simply not true. B&W certainly is FAR better on film than with > digital, unless you happen to have a monochromatic digital camera, which I > do...and there aren't many out there, they are mostly all converted from the > RGBG Bayer pattern, and are far inferior to film. Now as far as color goes, > the new films with the 4th layer are VERY good in mixed lighting. Also, > color balance can easily be corrected using tonal curve adjustment after (or > during) scanning. Zoom, right over your head. I was not talking about making black and white photos with digital. I was talking about how neutral the digital image is - as opposed to ALL films which have color biases. That's why professional photographers use significant numbers of gel filters when they're shooting for color accuracy. Even Ektachrome Pro 100, which last time I checked (ask Fred Ward) was the most neutral film on the market, has biases. My experience with digital shows this area is one that the numbers fall in favor of digital. - Canon's specifically. I can't speak for Nikon or Olympus or Sony. Haven't used those brands nearly as much. But 21 years of shooting film, 15 of those professionally, gives me a pretty reasonable comparison. >> I still own $25,000 worth of Leica hardware, and I just shot some photos >> today on film. My only personal digital camera is a Canon G3 >> point-and-shoot >> (albeit a high-end one). > > Well, then, how come you're such a digital expert then if you don't really > have much digital experience? I have plenty of professional digital experience. In the field and in the studio over the past six years. I have only liked digital since getting my hands on a Canon D60 at work. I'm was a photographer and am now a photo editor, I don't build digital devices. But that doesn't matter. I get results that work and are published and sent around the world. > Well, Eric, it's YOU who came across as Mr. Digital...and now, come to find > out, you shoot mostly with Leicas and have not much "real" digital > experience. All that proves is you don't read very carefully. Eric Welch Carlsbad, CA http://www.jphotog.com Democracies die behind closed doors. - JUDGE DAMON J. KEITH (In a ruling declaring that the Bush administration acted unlawfully in holding deportation hearings in secret.) - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html