[Leica] Why a digital M

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

B. D. Colen said:
>>And digital has its own "grain;" except it's called "noise." <<

Hi B.D.,
I happened to use "digital grain" the other day with an amateur photog who
had only shot digital and never film.

He was appalled that I'd used "grain" refering to digital prints. "It isn't
grain, it's noise for heaven sakes, you really are a digital rookie aren't
you!"

Of course I did help him up off the floor, then held digital cameras to both
his ears and tripped the shutters! :-)  Then asked "Did you hear the noise?"

Then I explained this absloutely stupid wording "noise" created by
computer - digital gooks, OK geeks, when in reality if they used the right
word... grain in the first place, then many of us would've understood what
the hell they were talking about.

As far as I'm concerned it's nothing more than the "grain of digital" look
like Tri-x or other types of film.

Hell the first time I read about "noise" my immediate re-action was to think
the digital camera had a distinct "sound noise" compared to a Leica. Oh well
then I discovered I was a rookie! ;-)
ted



" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 6:41 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Why a digital M


> Inferior because of the grain? I don't think so. Each film's grain
> structure is part of the 'look' of the particular film, and is in fact
> one of the reasons that people prefer particular films. One of the draw
> backs of digital can, for me, be the lack of grain - although there are
> some pretty good ways to put it in.
>
> :-)
>
> B. D.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
> David Mason
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:34 AM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Why a digital M
>
>
> Yeah, I have to agree with that - except that sometimes I like grain in
> a photo. To me the bug drawback with film scanning is the clean-up work
> I have to do in photoshop - dust, color-cast, etc. Of course, I don't
> have a very nice scanner either ;)
>
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:14:15 +0100, Frank Dernie
> <frank.dernie@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Yea but look at the results - scanned film is nowhere near as good as
> > you write. I use a Nikon 8000 scanner and scanned film 35 is very
> > comparable to my 6mpxl EOS, better in some ways, worse in others.
> > Scanned 6x7 negs have more resolution but are still inferior in some
> > ways because of the grain. Frank
> >
> > On 14 Jul, 2004, at 02:12, Frank Filippone wrote:
> >
> > > It was measured as 10MP per square inch... and a Pixel defined as in
>
> > > any other graphics business. .... as a representation of RGB ( or
> > > other color
> > > coordinate) ....  SO it is 10MP/sqIn * 1 1/2 sqIn/Neg * 3
> Colors/pixel
> > > for a
> > > total of 45MP ( as measured by the marketing companies trying to
> sell
> > > pixels
> > > rather than perfrormance) for a 35mm Neg... and that was a bunch of
> > > years
> > > ago with lower grade film than Velvia or Tmx100......
> > >
> > > Frank Filippone
> > > red735i@earthlink.net
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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