[Leica] PAWS 27 and 28

[locke at straylight.ca (Greg Locke)]

This is interesting Nathan. I know everyones experience is different for
different reasons (I have been scanning negs and chrome, prints since the
days of the UPI unifax transmitters and the Leafax ...which some on the list
will remember) but I still consider my Nikon pro DSLR's to be a sub standard
tool for quailty photography.

Good slides in a scanner (even my cheap Coolscan and Canon 4000) still
produce far better quality digital files than my D100 and D1X.

Someone asked me to make an analogy once and I said my Nikon's produced a
digital file that was equilent to a decent 400 ASA colour neg film.  ...no
where near the quality of Fujichrome 100 or a scanned file from same. It all
comes down to tonal grauation ....digital just doesn't have it compared to
film.  

I'm not talking about obsure numbers or formulae either but just the human
eyeball.

Most of my work for the past 20 years has been on chrome, only using colour
neg when speed and very tight deadlines dictated  ...and usually for quick
and dirty jobs that I would not be keeping the pictures for my stock library
anyway.

That said, there is no doubting the speed and covenience of digital...
Especially in news gathering. I couldn't do this Sound Symposium stuff (see
like below) and display daily without it. The chrome I have been shooting is
still not processed :^)

Digital makes me feel like a drug addict. I hate it, I know its bad for me
but  it does get me through the day when I need a fix.

Regardless, you are still making pictures, you just have a wider selection
of tools to choose from now.

Greg Locke
St. John's, Newfoundland

      --- SOUND SYMPOSIUM XII --
International Festival of New Music and Art 
Daily photo coverage at 
http://blog.greglocke.com
July 8 - 18, 2004
St. John's, Newfoundland 

> Behalf Of Nathan Wajsman
> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 6:15 AM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] PAWS 27 and 28
> 
> Roger et al.
> 
> time and the DSLR used for color work. I have come to 
> recognize that while I am pretty good at shooting, 
> processing, scanning and post-processing B&W film, my results 
> from scanned E6 or Kodachrome leave a lot to be desired. The 
> output I saw from the Canon was far superior to anything I 
> have done in color using film. And that was using cheapish 
> Sigma lenses;