[Leica] RE: lens quality in a digital age

[schneiderpix at mac.com (Robert Schneider)]

Speaking of enlargements from 8X10 negatives, anyone in or near  
Boston should check out the exhibition at the Museum of Fine Arts of  
photographs by Laura McPhee.  The photos are of people, places, and  
things in the wilds of Idaho, taken, in color, on 8X10 film and  
enlarged around 9X to something like 6X8 feet.  Fairly astonishing as  
these things go, and many are quite beautiful.  I'd love to know who  
printed them.  It must have been one hell of a job.

They're up through mid-September, BTW.

rs
______________________________________
www.robertschneider.com
www.schneiderpix.com





On May 27, 2006, at 9:09 PM, G Hopkinson wrote:

> Thanks Robert for a well reasoned and objective contribution.
>
> Regarding film limitations, Erwin Puts is worth a read regarding light
> scatter in the emulsion on projection/enlargement.
>
> Of course using a Leica is not just about the most efficient tool,  
> is it?
> The company would be long extinct.
>
> Just for my two cents on the original topic, one advantage of film,  
> IMO is
> the ease of archiving and non-dependence on this or that codec,  
> proprietary
> software or whatever. In short you can't DRM a neg or transparency.  
> All of
> my workflow is digital after capture on film, I'm not a  
> Luddite, ... really.
> Of course I am just an amateur enthusiast. Everyone's requirements and
> priorities will differ, most especially professionals.
>
> Cheers
> Hoppy
> New guy
>
>
>  -
>
> Message: 33
> Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 19:18:38 -0400
> From: Robert Schneider <schneiderpix@mac.com>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Lens Quality in the Digital Age
> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
> Message-ID: <629AD9A4-477D-496E-B022-E475A37E2715@mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> As someone who has been shooting film with my Leicas a lot lately,
> I'll gladly throw some gasoline on this fire. . .
>
> When discussing the presumed superior resolution of silver-gelatin
> prints vis-a-vis digital inkjet, you're ignoring a basic  (and
> important) difference.  Prints from 35mm negatives require two
> optical stages.  Forgetting about the noise (grain) limitations
> inherent in film, prints from 35mm negatives can only be as good as
> the optics used throughout the production chain.  Superlative optics,
> carefully focussed, can draw a high-resolution image on a piece of
> film.  That piece of film then has to have evenly-distributed, often
> diffused, light passed through it and then through a superlative,
> carefully focussed enlarging lens, stopped down to its "sweet spot,"
> to produce the highest resolution final print.
>
> Clearly there are a number places in this sequence where "operator
> error" can rear its head.  Then there are the issues of optical
> quality in both the production and post-production stages.  While
> focussing error can be as big a problem in digital as it is with
> film, only one optical stage (the taking lens) is required to produce
> a print from a digitally-captured image.  Printing from digital
> strikes me as much closer to projecting a transparency than it does
> to enlarging and printing a negative.  If the digital capture is made
> through superlative optics, precisely focused, onto a high-resolution
> imaging chip and printed at a sufficiently high dpi on a high-quality
> inkjet printer, it will definitely have higher-resolution and "more
> detail" than an equivalent enlargement from a 35mm negative.  The
> latest high-megapixel large chip "35mm" digital cameras when used at
> common ISO settings (100 to 3200, let's say) surpass the image
> quality of equivalent 35mm film hands down.
>
> It is fair and legitimate to claim a preference for the look of a
> silver print from a film negative.  Some claim a "clinical"
> perfection to digitally captured images (as with digitally recorded
> music) that they dislike.  But to claim that this particular level of
> connoisseurship, or empirical evidence, your choice, equates with
> quantifiable fact is false.  Carefully produced digital images are
> verifiably superior to any equivalent print from 35mm film.  The
> evidence is overwhelming.
>
> If you're comparing a print from an 8X10 negative to an 8X
> enlargement from a 13 megapixel digital capture, OK, you win. But
> that's comparing apples to Buicks.  You would equally correct in
> making that comparison to an 8X enlargement from 35mm film.
>
> I love working with my Leicas.  But I'd rather be shooting digital
> than film.
>
> rs
> ______________________________________
> www.robertschneider.com
> www.schneiderpix.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information