Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/07

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

Subject: [Leica] Leica Digilux 2 @ 1600 :-)
From: bdcolen at (B. D. Colen)
Date: Tue Sep 7 06:48:03 2004

There is a real visual difference between the two. However, my suspicion
is that we are more willing to accept the grain noise of Tri-X than a
similar amount of digital noise simply because it is what we, as Tri-X
shooters, are used to. Keep in mind that one of the reasons that there
are folks completely dedicated to 2 1/4 and larger formats, and film
slower than an old man walking on an icy sidewalk, is that they think
that grain is ugly and degrades their images. ;-)

I have too say, however, that much as I respect, admire, and like Ted, I
don't get what he's claiming. I took a few shots yesterday setting my
iso for 400, dialing in -2EV, and what I got was - two grossly
underexposed images in which I could see the noise on the LCD. No, I
didn't download them and follow the rest of his formula - I'll try that
today. But I don't get it. Unless - and this may be the trick - IF he's
shooting in really low-light, very contrasty situations, if he's taking
an overall reading of the scene, what he may be unwittingly doing is
exposing properly for the highlights, which are at least two to three
stops above the shadows, and turning the shadows to solid black, so that
the noise disappears in the shadows. Just a thought.

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of
Adam Bridge
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 12:21 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Digilux 2 @ 1600 :-)

To my eye there's a real difference between grain, as you see in say
Tri-X pushed to 800, and digital  noise. Maybe it's just that I'm used
to seeing the grain in film...but I find it much more pleasant than the
noise in a digital image. For one thing there's a subtle pattern to
digital noise - it happens on the pixel sites - while film grain has a
randomness to it that is much more, well, natural, or perhaps less
ordered, than digital noise.


On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:05:03 -0700, Ted Grant <> wrote:
> Marc Attinasi asked:
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Digilux 2 @ 1600 :-)
> > How was the auto-focus in such low light? Is manual focus at all 
> > useful on the Digilux 2 in very low light?<<<<<
> Hi Marc,
> It worked just fine. I don't bother with manual focus as quite frankly

> it's a visual pain in the ass! :-) Besides the autofocus works very 
> well and quickly.
> > I've used the Canon DRebel at ISO 800, underexposing by several 
> > stops shooting night scenes. The shadow noise just kills me - have 
> > to find one of those magic filters I guess.<<<
> Well the Digi 2 is very quiet and I've not heard any noise so far. ;-)

> ;-) However, the slight appearance of a "grain like effect" is 
> minimal. It's like I've said, I don't know what the heck I'm doing 
> different from others but the "grain like effect" shows very little. 
> And where it does, it's similar to say Tri-x pushed a couple of stops.

> Therefore it's not an uncommon appearance and acceptable.
> ted
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information
Leica Users Group.
See for more information

Replies: Reply from phong at (Phong) ([Leica] New Old photo)
Reply from tedgrant at (Ted Grant) ([Leica] Leica Digilux 2 @ 1600 :-))
In reply to: Message from abridge at (Adam Bridge) ([Leica] Leica Digilux 2 @ 1600 :-))