Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/04/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I've always been very satisfied with fast films (neg) and scans. Maybe our tolerance levels for grain are different? I don't mind seeing it in stretches of sky or some other midtone. I've had the scans printed out (Fuji Frontier labs) to large prints and they hold up well. I usually use Fuji Press 400 or 800 (same as Superia and X-tra). Daniel On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Frank Dernie wrote: > The scans I get from my Rolleiflex, Mamiya and xpan on the Nikon > scanner are great, slides from my Leica scan fine. Fast films have so > much grain as to be disappointing compared to digital and scanned > transparencies. Perhaps it is the film. > Frank > > On 29 Apr, 2004, at 05:50, mehrdad wrote: > > > Frank, you might have been cheated be either the nikon scanner, leica > > or > > your process. I scan iso 400 film (negs, not even slide) with great > > success > > and assume results, send me some of your stuff and I will scan them > > for you > > > > > > > > _______________________________ > > Regards, Mehrdad > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: lug-bounces+msadat=kiakki.net@leica-users.org > > [mailto:lug-bounces+msadat=kiakki.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > > Frank > > Dernie > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:37 PM > > To: Leica Users Group > > Subject: Re: [Leica] Update on the digital back for the Leica R8/9 > > (DMR) > > > > > > My Canon D30 was clearly better at 400asa than 200asa Leica colour > > negatives scanned on a Nikon coolscan 8000. > > I have not checked since, just assumed my 10D is similar. To get > > superior overall from film I needed Kodachrome or Astia. > > Frank > > > > > > On 28 Apr, 2004, at 22:41, mehrdad wrote: > > > >> That's a first, most of the current ones and all the past are pretty > >> useless > >> @ 800 and color 400 quality is a long reach away from digital > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________ > >> Regards, Mehrdad > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: lug-bounces+msadat=kiakki.net@leica-users.org > >> [mailto:lug-bounces+msadat=kiakki.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > >> FRANK > >> DERNIE > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:25 AM > >> To: Leica Users Group > >> Subject: RE: [Leica] Update on the digital back for the Leica R8/9 > >> (DMR) > >> > >> > >> Yes but my digi camera at 800asa is better than any > >> 400asa film I have used (not many!) > >> Frank > >> > >> --- "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> wrote: > It > >> all depends what you use the camera for. I agree > >>> whole heartedly with > >>> Lucian - particularly at this stage in digital > >>> development. But if you > >>> shoot K64, or similarly slow films all the time, > >>> you'd be happy with a > >>> digital with a top ISO of a staggering 200. Which is > >>> what makes for > >>> horse races...or horse walks in this case.. ;-) > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: > >>> lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org > >>> > >> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] > >>> On Behalf Of > >>> FRANK DERNIE > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 5:20 AM > >>> To: Leica Users Group > >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Update on the digital back for > >>> the Leica R8/9 (DMR) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It is interesting how varied we are. I have been > >>> taking pictures for over 40 years now and have never > >>> even tried a film faster than 400asa, and I did that > >>> when I started as a teenager, and repeated from time > >>> to time to see what the fuss is about. I usually use Kodachrome 64, > >>> hence my need for a Leica as I am using wide apertures most of the > >>> time here in England. The only time I needed faster was in a crypt > >>> where the Kings of the Navarre are buried, there I used 800asa > >>> on my Canon D30 and got results way better than I > >>> would have had on film, it was a decisive moment for > >>> me. > >>> I can't imagine using >800asa as a matter of course! > >>> > >>> Frank > >>> > >>> --- Lucien <director@ubi.edu> wrote: > > >>>> mehrdad wrote : > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Lucien, the maximum iso is not at important as > >>> the > >>>> maximum usable and > >>>>> for > >>>>> that we have to wait. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Mehrdad, > >>>> > >>>> In September, if the maximum ISO setting is still > >>>> 800, I'll know that > >>>> I'll never buy it. No need of a test. > >>>> > >>>> Lucien > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Leica Users Group. > >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug > >>> for > >>>> more information > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Leica Users Group. > >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for > >>> more information > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Leica Users Group. > >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for > >>> more information > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >