Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/05/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Nonsense. The digital images of today are better than film in the vast majority of cases. The exceptions involve slow film, drum scans, master printers with the best equipment etc. The bear analogy simply does not hold anymore. I do shoot film on occasion (medium format), but to be honest, this is mostly motivated by nostalgia and the pleasure of playing with Hasselblad equipment, not by image quality. As to the other point, yes, lenses do matter a great deal, regardless of the whether the light is hitting film or a sensor. Those of us who are using quality lenses on our DSLRs (whether Leica or Canon L) can certainly tell the difference. Nathan Austin Burbridge wrote: > Martin, you are right. > > Convenience of modification and distribution is what drives digital -- > not the primacy of the image. > > The digital image is still in the "dancing bear" stage: "It is not > that the bear dances so well, but that it does it at all." > > When I think about all the electronic technology that is needed to > emulate the quality of one thin 24mm x 36mm frame of acetate, silver, > and gelatin ... well, I can only shake my head in wonder. Especially > since film has never been so good. > > I have made my living in the digital domain for twenty years, but I > still believe in appropriate technology -- the right tool for the job! > > Regards, > > A U S T I N , > > Austin Burbridge, > EXPOSE for Shadows/Develop for HIGHLIGHTS http://cinemaminima.com/leica > Sprezzatura http://sprezzatura.editthispage.com/ > flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/sprezzatura/ > Cinema Minima http://www.cinemaminima.com/ > > ### > > > > On May 26, 2006, at 19:42, Martin Krieger wrote: > >> Please correct me if I am wrong. What is most interesting in this >> emerging digital age is the general decline of interest in lens >> quality. Lots of interest in processing algorithms, in pixel counts, >> in noise in the sensor, but the lenses have been let off scot free. >> This may make sense for point and shoots (with exceptional cases such >> as the Digilux 2), but you would think there is more concern in the >> Nikon/Canon/etc digital world. They sell the models with not very >> good lenses, in effect reasonably good cars with thin rubber tires. >> You can buy better lenses, but as far as I can tell, there have been >> no real advances in lens quality. Leica still makes perhaps the best >> lenses, surely some of the best. Canon may make a few. But the main >> point here is that lens quality is no longer front and center. >> >> Moreover, no inkjet system (and I suspect no lightjet system, about >> this I am unsure) has the resolution of silver-gelatin or even color >> printing paper. You look with a 20x magnifier and you see the dots. >> Nothing wrong with this, except if you are curious about some detail >> twenty years from now and have only the print. >> >> Have I missed the revolution? >> >> MK >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- Nathan Wajsman Almere, The Netherlands SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUY DANISH PRODUCTS! General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com Picture-A-Week: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com Stock photography: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=507 Prints for sale: http://www.photodeluge.com Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog