Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Another race not to remember although it was a very good race. I prefer using an M6 to my digital SLR but the inconvenience of waiting 'till I have shot the whole film before seeing my results, and the ability to change ASA value from frame to frame are the deciding factors for me. With respect to scans, with a 4000 dpi scanner the grain is visible on 200 asa films and faster (of the ones I have scanned) so further resolution would be pointless. Scans of finer grain slide film may contain more detail than the scan, I don't know. I am very conscious of the fact that good comparisons between film and digital are difficult and have been emotional. I am very happy with the prints I am getting. If I did not have 40+ years of negatives I would not have bought a scanner. Prints from scanned negatives look good to me and I find it easier than Cibachtome (Ilfachrome now) despite my years of experience in the darkroom. With a complete film and chemical based solution, the enlarger, its lens, ones focussing accuracy and skill with the chemicals all exert a powerful influence on the results. In the complete digital solution there are fewer things to go wrong! For this amateur the prints I get now via my digital camera exceed what I personally was able to achieve from film in my darkroom. The techno fear of digital obsolescence is a non issue in my opinion. The release of a new camera with new features does not make the one you already have get suddenly worse or stop working! If it produces the results you are looking for there is absolutely no problem with "better" products appearing on the market. There is, for example, nothing about the new Can*n 20D which makes my 10D any worse and the improvements are certainly way insufficient for me to consider changing to one. I will continue to use my M6 on holiday and for slides but as an every day camera it is in retirement. cheers Frank On 29 Aug, 2004, at 20:55, Robert Clark wrote: > Frank: > Too bad for Pizzonia....he was on track for a podium today. With Ralf > coming back, that's probably his last one. Fascinating race, > though..JPM made some good moves.... I have some decisions to make > regarding my imaging system. I need a scanner and greater computing > power. My wife has the apple g4 and I use it from time to time but > it's nothing like the g5 we have in our graphic arts dept at work. > Now that I have the D70, I hardly ever use the M6....and I'm thinking > about selling the system for a new computer plus a scanner. I like > the M but I just don't use it anymore. > > All the best, > Robert > > Frank Dernie wrote: > >> Hi Robert , >> a B&W 6x6 scan is about 70 Mb and a colour around 250 Mb, unless >> scanned at 16 bit, then they are >500Mb...... >> Ralf is certainly not driving at Spa but will drive at a test at >> Monza just before the Grand Prix and will return there if all goes >> well. >> cheers >> Frank >> >> >> On 25 Aug, 2004, at 19:26, Robert Clark wrote: >> >>> Frank: >>> On average, what is a typical size for a scanned MF image in color? >>> And B/W? I was at a friend's house last Friday and saw some >>> absolutely wonderful MF images from a Hasselblad. Since I now have >>> the N70, I'm not using the M6 at all...but the image quality of a MF >>> looks pretty appealing. >>> >>> BTW...how's Ralf? Will he be back this year? >>> >>> Robert Clark >>> Lancaster, PA >>> >>> Frank Dernie wrote: >>> >>>> I think my EOS10D is actually lighter than my R8, thought some of >>>> the lenses are lighter some are heavier. I do find the prints from >>>> the 10D, printed formerly on an Epson, now a Canon, printer >>>> comparable to prints from scanned negatives from my R8, maybe a >>>> touch worst than scanned slides and a touch better than scanned >>>> print film. I don't like the ergonomics of the Canon nearly as much >>>> as the R8 and the R8 viewfinder is in another class. OTOH not >>>> having to wait for the end of the film is a great benefit for >>>> amateurs such as myself so I only use film for MF, here the prints >>>> from scanned negatives are much better than the EOS 10D or 35mm >>>> Leica scans. >>>> cheers >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> On 25 Aug, 2004, at 18:29, Douglas Herr wrote: >>>> >>>>> FRANK DERNIE <frank.dernie@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I wonder whether 120 or 35mm film will be the more >>>>>> popular in the future. I would expect 35mm to be less >>>>>> interesting because it is so easily comparable in size >>>>>> weight and quality to digital. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Interesting question - but until the size and weight of digital >>>>> cameras giving output comparable to a high-end 35mm film camera >>>>> shrinks considerably I don't see the size or weight as comparable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Doug Herr >>>>> Birdman of Sacramento >>>>> http://www.wildlightphoto.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >