Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/21

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled
From: firkin at balhpl01.ncable.net.au (firkin)
Date: Sun Nov 21 20:26:46 2004
References: <BDC68D10.AC9E%mark@rabinergroup.com> <341A7A4E-3C2F-11D9-AE5E-00306599C552@earthlink.net> <20041122025039.5953.qmail@balhpl01.ncable.net.au> <399E7D6E-3C3A-11D9-AE5E-00306599C552@earthlink.net>

Thanks very much: your comments give me more confidence that I will be very 
happy doing colour work with film and scanned negs into the near to medium 
future. I think I will give up medium format colour work, do more b/w with 
the Hasselblad and Rolleiflex's and keep the M's' for PJ style b/w work: and 
for the FOM2 ;-) 

Cheers 

Feli di Giorgio writes: 

> 
> On Nov 21, 2004, at 6:50 PM, firkin wrote:
>> The immediate question is what do you do that requires 10 to 12. I mean 
>> this seriously, not as a jibe or insult.
> 
> I would like a few extra pixels in case I have to crop. There's not much 
> room for error with a 6MP camera. 
> 
>>  My mind tell me that 10 to 12 seems about right, because I suspect 
>> (never tried and therefore don't know) that you could print 16 x 20 at 
>> about this level with 35mm happiness. Barry Thornton claimed that only 
>> really "lucky" good 35mm negs could produce "perfect" images larger than 
>> about 10 x 14 (I think) I remember thinking "I've got larger ones" but 
>> then thinking but they are not all "perfect", so he may be right.
> 
> I agree. I tried to enlarge 35 negs to 16x20. It can be done, but I think 
> it depends on the subject matter and the
> technical quality of the the neg. For anything above a 11x14 I grab the 
> Rolleiflex. ;-) 
> 
>> Like many, I suspect I've been too worried about making big enlargements, 
>> when smaller well crafted images would be "better" and store much more 
>> easily !!!!!
> 
> Some shots simply look better small... 
> 
> 
>> This brings me back to my nagging question; will todays good film 
>> scanners "match" a 10 mega pixel dedicated digital camera when you view 
>> moderately large images side by side?
> 
> I used a 1ds (11MP) back at my old job and compared some shots with scans 
> I made with my Nikon SC 5000 ED (4000dpi) against it. Modern Leica glass 
> with fine grain film is right up there or better. But it gets tougher to 
> match as the asa goes up.
> I have a gut feeling the new 16MP 1ds II would be a lot tougher to compete 
> against. On the other hand film negative has way more exposure range, 
> digital is like shooting slide film. Besides compared to a Leica, the 1Ds 
> feels like a Speed Graphics, Ever tried sticking one of those in your 
> pants pocket? ;-) 
> 
> But I don't shoot 35 film, because of ultimate resolution. It has enough 
> for what I do. If I was a res nut
> I would be running around with Hobo 8x10. ;-) 
> 
> feli 
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> feli2@earthlink.net                    2 + 2 = 4                   
> www.elanphotos.com 
> 
> 
> Feli 
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
 


Alastair Firkin @ work ;-) 

http://www.afirkin.com
http://www.familyofman2.com 

In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from feli2 at earthlink.net (Feli di Giorgio) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from firkin at balhpl01.ncable.net.au (firkin) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from feli2 at earthlink.net (Feli di Giorgio) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)