Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/28

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] A Grudging Concession to Digital, Made With Regret
From: "Don Dory" <dorysrus@mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:20:04 -0500

Simon,
Getting started would only take a room you can darken, an enlarger, a
lens or two, some trays, chemical bottles, and few other what nots.
Getting good is another story.

Buy or get from the library a copy of Ansel Adams "The Print" and that
will give you a good starting point.

Don
dorysrus@mindspring.com

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of animal
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 3:40 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] A Grudging Concession to Digital, Made With Regret



> On 2/25/04 7:24 PM, "Matthew Powell" <mlpowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 2004, at 7:21 PM, Dan C wrote:
> >> I'm still happy with my Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II (a 2820 dpi
film
> >> scanner), which has been superceded by models III and IV.  They
> >> represent
> >> good value in scanners, costing in the low hundreds of dollars.
Even
> >> the
> >> higher end Minolta 5400 still only costs a bit over $1,000 in
Canadian
> >> dollars.  I would expect any of these scanners to be significantly
> >> superiour to flat bed scanners with film adaptors, at least for
35mm
> >> film.
> >
> > I purchased a new Nikon Coolscan V for $549 locally - only minor
> > differences (from what I can tell) with the Coolscan 5000. The 5000
is
> > a little bit faster, 48-bit (vs. 42-bit) and will let you scan
entire
> > rolls at once with a special adapter, for ~$450 more.
> >
> > I'm hoping that the price of the Coolscan 8000 used will drop with
the
> > introduction of the 9000, for my 6x6 negatives (and X-Pan negs, if I
> > can ever save up the money for one).
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>
> In darkroom printing with a film developer dilution combination and
print
> magnification there is a distinctive grain pattern which I'm very
attuned
to
> and thatıs a good part of the reason why I'd use such a combination.
> Gradation is great but I do go down to the nitty gritty and take
loupes to
> my prints and check them out. Enlarging magnifiers donıt tell you
nothing.
> Or certainly even the best loupe on a print. You'd need a microscope.
>
> It's not certainly unusual to be having grain quality be a major
reason
why
> one would pick a certain film/developer/dilution/magnification
combination
> or technique.
>
> In digital the quality of the grain seems to come mostly from the use
and
> mainly abuse of the unsharp mask filter and other strange algorithms
from
> the planet Xenon. A slow film can easily show more grain than a super
fast
> film and visa versa you see all the time. A scanner can moiré if it's
> resolution is close to that the resolution in the grain pattern is I
hear.
I
> get that when I press the wrong button every morning on my blender!
> "ON GUARD!"
>
> I believe Mark Davison told me that the 5000 more so than the 4000 can
give
> a a sense of the exact quality of grain that is really in the
negative.
> I guess so when you printed the neg in the darkroom it would look
something
> like your previously made inkjet. And my money is on he's probably
right.
> It sure doesn't with anything I'm using now. A Nikon LS-2000 and a
Umax
> PowerLook III. He say's it's not quite there with the 4000. It sure as
hell
> is not there with something you'd get for 200 bucks but not everybody
takes
> a loupe to his prints or makes A3's or Super B's.
> I think my sister was a Super B when we were kids. Gave the Brownies a
run
> for their money!
>
> With the resolutions we've had so far we've not been able to get a
real
feel
> for what the real grain of the neg is all about. I think the printer's
now
> cold pull it off if the scans were higher res. This could be easily
> confirmed by just bringing in a neg  to a place to get scanned super
high
> res and then print on my 2200. Maybe someone can confirm this - this
whole
> post is pure conjecture.
> But really NICE conjecture I sure!
>
>
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland, Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
>
From what i,ve checked many times with my 4000 scanner ,it fails to
digitise
detail that is available in handheld shots .I doubt that a 5000 one
would
extract the fine detail one would achieve with a tripod.
Brother how long would it take one to get started in printing the old
way?
simon

- --
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