Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]BD, I have made some B&W 7960 prints on HP's premium glossy paper, and I agree that they are very good. And, yes, sometimes they could be seen as being as good as a good RC print. I concede that. Bob > Sorry to disagree, Robert - But they are interchangeable with wet RC > prints with similar finish. Fiber, of course not. But RC? Try showing > someone who is not a darkroom junkie two prints side by side and they > will have no idea which is which. My guess is either would you if you > didn't have the paper in your hand. ;-) > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Meier > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:15 AM > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] digital transformation > > > > Richard, > > Yes, I've read his praise for the 7960. I've used that too, and while > I > agree that it makes prints that look good, they are not easily mistaken > for > wet prints. I was only looking at RC prints. When I compare > fiberbase > prints, the tilt goes even more vertiginously towards the wet prints. > > Bob > > >> Bob, you realized that B.D. has done a test with B&W wet print vs. > HP7960 >> B&W print and he claims the results are different but comparable > right? >> >> While I don't do wet prints, my 7960 B&W do look quite gorgeous.... >> >> At 09:38 PM 4/27/2005, you wrote: >> >> >>>John, >>> >>>I think you have identified exactly what is most important. I have > just >>>been going through a stack of B&W 8x10's of mine from the last three >>>years, or so. These are just first prints, or file or work prints, > but >>>their quality is just overwhelming -- the detail and the tonal range > are >>>outstanding, and I've never gotten a B&W digital print that is > anywhere >>>near as good. Not from my D70 or from a scanned Leica negative, not > even >>>on my Epson C86 printer with the MIS carbon black and gray inks. The > >>>quality of output of film cameras is just in another orbit from > digital. >>>Your second criterion is even more tilted in favor of film, if that is > >>>possible. No digital camera has the qualities in the hand and up to > the >>>eye that a Leica has, or even a Hexar RF, or a Nikon FM2. This is > very, >>>very important for getting a good picture in the first place. So the > two >>>things go hand in hand and the result is, IMHO, much better pictures. >>> >>>Bob >>> >>>>For me two things matter: the quality of the output and the user >>>>interface. I use M cameras because they suit the way I see period. I > am >>>>only loyal to Leica in that they are the only ones providing what I > need. >>>>99% of my output is projected slide and projected digital is just not > >>>>there yet quality wise. It will get there eventually and, if Leica > comes >>>>out with a M digital, I will seriously weigh the options. For one > thing >>>>present digital projectors, even with their relatively poor quality >>>>output, are extremely expensive to buy and maintain. Sure film and >>>>processing are expensive but have you priced out replacement bulbs > for >>>>digital projectors?!! >>>> >>>>John Collier >>>> >>>>On 27-Apr-05, at 8:35 PM, Don Dory wrote: >>>> >>>>>In the almost five years I have been participating on the LUG, there > has >>>>>been a rather dramatic shift in conversation. When I first started >>>>>paying attention, this was definitely a gear head discussion, we > were >>>>>very interested in Marc's book on LTM lenses, long treatises on > small >>>>>differences in the 50's, scotch religious wars, Tilley hats and > more. >>>>> >>>>>In the last year the transformation to primarily digital has been >>>>>profound; actual Leica discussion has dropped to a very minor part. >>>>>Even film based discussion is a minority. >>>>> >>>>>I understand that for many, the tool does not matter. Nathan, B.D., >>>>>Ted, Tina, Sonny, and many others have made the transition to > digital an >>>>>easy move. Strangely enough, for me, the tool does matter: I get > along >>>>>fine with a variety of cameras and formats but an M or a SL becomes > an >>>>>extension of my eye more so than any other photographic tool. While > I >>>>>respect the need of the professional to streamline workflow, speed > up >>>>>the billing process, or just plain know they have the shot in the > bag, I >>>>>find great joy in going over new negatives or slides; love the >>>>>serendipity when the combination of chemistry and accident create >>>>>wonderful images far more that looking at an LCD. >>>>> >>>>>So I guess what I am really wondering is, how many of us on the list > are >>>>>somewhat nostalgic for film, or have genuinely embraced the digital >>>>>revolution? >>>>> >>>>>Don >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>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 >>> >> >> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, > please >> use richard at imagecraft.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 >