[Leica] Format output obviousness

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

I believe it is quite valid. He lays out the parameters pretty 
clearly, and doesn't make claims for things which aren't evident.

All he said was that for the 13x19 prints he produced, these were the 
results. Nothing more. He also said explicitly that this couldn't be 
extrapolated to other situations, print sizes etc.

In general, it tracks my own experiences. I've done very few A/B 
comparisons, but while I like the files from the M9 much better than 
the files from m4/3 let alone G10, under the right conditions they 
can all produce good prints.

But, as I said, I like the M9 files better than those from the other 
cameras I have. They're easier to work with and seem to have more 
resolution and dynamic range and better colour than other files. That 
doesn't always translate into better prints though, and I don't think 
it's always the fault of the printer whoever that may be.



At 11:09 AM -0400 9/15/10, Chris Saganich wrote:
>Too many possible confounders which were not considered for this to 
>be a valid study.
>
>
>At 03:39 AM 9/15/2010, you wrote:
>>You tell that to Michael Reichmann:
>>
>>"At one point I found myself looking at raw files on-screen and not being
>>sure if I was looking at Hasselblad P45+ files or Canon G10 files. That
>>includes at 100% onscreen enlargements."
>>
>>and
>>
>>Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry
>>professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of 13X19"
>>prints from an *Epson 3800* printer made on *Ilford Gold Fiber Silk* paper
>>which were then hung side by side on my floor-standing print viewing box.
>>This collection of seven people included experienced photographers, people
>>from the commercial print industry, and other trade professionals. Between
>>them there was at least 200 years of photographic industry shooting and
>>printing experience.
>>
>>In most cases I did not tell them what they were looking at, simply saying
>>that I had been shooting with two cameras, and that they should divide the
>>prints (about a dozen) into two piles - Camera A and Camera B. They were
>>asked to judge resolution, accutance, colour reproduction, highlight 
>>detail,
>>dMax, and any other factors that they wished to consider.
>>The Results
>>
>>In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19"
>>prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, 
>>and
>>the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and
>>overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other
>>words, no better than chance.
>>
>>
>>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at 
>>rabinergroup.com>wrote:
>>
>>  > Every portfolio I've ever had or stack of prints; and every 
>>stack of prints
>>  > other photographers have shown me I've always known which ones 
>>of my prints
>>  > were 35mm, Medium format, or sheet film and I didn't have to 
>>bother telling
>>  > them and they didn't have to bother telling me; as we all knew at first
>>  > glance.
>>  > I can normally easily tell the difference between a full frame digital
>>  > image
>>  > even at low output and cropped format digital output and I think many
>>  > people
>>  > can with any experience. And certainly the difference between that and
>>  > point
>>  > and shoots with sensors the size of my pinky nail. And the 2x crop in
>>  > between. And medium format digital blows me right out of the 
>>water at least
>>  > my eyeballs.
>>  > If you can't tell the difference between your large and smaller format
>>  > digital output the time to hang it up is now.
>>  > Take up audio.
>>  >
>>  > --------------------
>>  > Mark William Rabiner
>>  > Photography
>>  > mark at rabinergroup.com
>>  > .
>>  >
-- 

    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com