[rollei_list] Re: OT Ancient Computers (was Re: Re: Rollei -Singapore) now analogue versus digital

Frank, the Leica M8 has not impressed me, I have seen prints and images in 
Flickr and there is nothing to say: wow!, except for the price, it's more 
expensive than a new Rolleiflex FT (I have also seen the 2007 LUG book).Some 
color images in Flickr look very good.
I only need manual controls for shutter speeds and f stops and a good lens to 
take a photograph,seeing the results in the darkroom if I shoot B&W, this is 
the way I enjoy photography.
The 1937 Contax II has been a nice surprise to me, except for the system to 
load film, you need to crop the film tab to insert it in the spool.

Best regards
Carlos  


--- El mar 13-ene-09, Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:

> De: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Asunto: [rollei_list] Re: OT Ancient Computers (was Re: Re: Rollei 
> -Singapore) now analogue versus digital
> Para: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fecha: martes, 13 de enero de 2009, 5:38 am
> The grains in the emulsion are not that thick. The 3
> dimensionality  
> you see is, in my opinion, more likely to be an optical
> characteristic  
> than anything to do with grains verses pixels, which I do
> not think  
> differ as greatly as you imply.
> I still get a great 3 dimensional look to my pictures using
> my Leica  
> M8 like I did with my M6 on film. IMHO it is a lens
> characteristic.
> Pity I can't get a digital image from my 3.5f to
> compare!
> best regards.
> Frank
> 
> 
> On 12 Jan, 2009, at 21:01, Carlos Manuel Freaza wrote:
> 
> > The limit to appreciate the image quality is the human
> eye capacity,  
> > film and digital means have surpassed the human eye
> capacity to  
> > appreciate sharpness differences widely, f.e. the
> human eye can't  
> > distinguish in the monitor screen a digital image at
> 24 bits and at  
> > 48 bits, the human eye can't distinguish a printed
> image denser than  
> > X lines per mm. The issue is the way the observer
> perceive the image  
> > and there is a real difference for grain and pixels,
> it is difficult  
> > or impossible to see in the monitor screen in general,
> however a  
> > well worked analog image has a three dimensions
> quality due to the  
> > grains physical structure absent in the pure pixel
> image.
> >
> > Carlos
> > --- El lun 12-ene-09, Frank Dernie
> <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
> > escribió:
> >
> >> De: Frank Dernie
> <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Asunto: [rollei_list] Re: OT Ancient Computers
> (was Re: Re: Rollei - 
> >> Singapore) now analogue versus digital
> >> Para: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Fecha: lunes, 12 de enero de 2009, 5:21 pm
> >> Carlos,
> >>
> >> I have been taking pictures since I was 11, in
> 1961. For
> >> most of that time I have had my own darkroom. I am
> quite
> >> aware of what one can do with film, and obviously
> better
> >> technicians that I can get better results than I.
> However
> >> the dynamic range of readily available digital
> sensors
> >> exceeds that of colour films now. The non linear S
> shape to
> >> the characteristic curve of films does allow more
> detail to
> >> be seen in either highlights or shadows if so
> manipulated.
> >> Similar manipulations are possible on digital
> files if
> >> desired.
> >> There is a potential for Moire effects when there
> is detail
> >> in a scene and resolution in the lens high enough
> to exceed
> >> the resolution of the sensor. Anti-aliasing
> filters are the
> >> normal way to avoid this effect, in electronics
> too. In the
> >> case of photography there are sensors which exceed
> the
> >> resolution of all but a few of the most
> specialised lenses
> >> available for the camera. The anti-aliasing filter
> is
> >> probably not necessary in those cases since the
> function is
> >> carried out by the lens. My Leica M8 does not have
> an anti
> >> aliasing filter and I have yet to be unable to
> deal with any
> >> unfortunate artefacts due to this. Quite the
> opposite in
> >> fact, I get better results from it than I do from
> my
> >> theoretically superior Canon EOS 1Ds mk2, thought
> that is
> >> probably the better lenses.
> >>
> >> Sharpening can certainly be overdone, but it is
> not
> >> commonly the case, and I certainly would advise
> not to
> >> over-sharpen :-)
> >>
> >> On digital one eventually gets to individual
> pixels, like
> >> on film one eventually gets to individual grains.
> There is a
> >> difference but just a question of how you deal
> with it, this
> >> difference between film and digital is not IMHO
> significant.
> >>
> >> The only area where I have found digital a bit
> more
> >> difficult than film is in focussing. My M8 is so
> much
> >> sharper than my M6 with Kodachrome that any small
> focussing
> >> errors, either due to myself or the dreaded focus
> shift on
> >> stopping down, are much more troublesome than were
> revealed
> >> by the somewhat more forgiving softness (and
> perhaps
> >> variations in flatness???) of film.
> >>
> >> best regards,
> >> Frank
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12 Jan, 2009, at 19:55, Carlos Manuel Freaza
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Frank, I really can't imagine the way you
> use your
> >> film cameras to obtain those conclusions.
> >>>
> >>> Films have personality; DSLRs don't. While
> many
> >> DSLRs let you dial in higher or lower saturation
> and
> >> contrast, those crude adjustments can't
> compare to the
> >> richness of film, whether Velvia's crisp,
> saturated look
> >> or the delicate tonal shoulder of Tri-X.
> (Black-and-white is
> >> a particular challenge for digital, especially
> in-camera.)
> >>> Film can be manipulated to soak up even more
> of a
> >> scene's tonal extremes. You can rein in
> highlights by
> >> "pulling," or shortening, the
> development of
> >> b&w film. You compensate for this by adding
> exposure
> >> when shooting, improving shadow detail. You can
> overexpose
> >> color negative film by as much as four stops to
> increase
> >> shadow detail and reduce contrast, without
> damaging
> >> highlight nuances.
> >>>
> >>> Some super-duper digital backs claim to match
> or
> >> exceed the range captured by film. If you can
> afford them,
> >> go for it -- and bring along your laptop.
> >>>
> >>> You can sharpen a digital image in software.
> And with
> >> most DSLRs you must, because images are
> considerably
> >> softened by anti-aliasing filters that keep their
> sensors
> >> from recording jagged edges and moiré patterns.
> Yet if you
> >> overdo your sharpening, the image can take on a
> >> distractingly "crispy" appearance. The
> sharpness
> >> you get from film is more natural looking.
> >>>
> >>> (Some parts above were taken from a Pop Photo
> article
> >> by Russell Hart)
> >>>
> >>> Digital is very practical to use for a lot of
> >> situations and well balanced images look very nice
> in the
> >> monitor screens, but most of them don't show
> the detail
> >> richness and tones subtleties you can obtain from
> a neg or
> >> slide for prints, magazines, projection, books
> etc. and
> >> I'm talking about a 35mm format.
> >>>
> >>> Carlos
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- El lun 12-ene-09, Frank Dernie
> >> <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
> >>>
> >>>>> If you shoot large format that can be
> true.
> >> For medium
> >>>> format or what used to be called
> "miniature
> >>>> format" when I started photography
> this is
> >> not true.
> >>>> The only film parameter which has the
> potential be
> >> better
> >>>> than digital is -perhaps- resolution, but
> only
> >> very slow
> >>>> black and white films in ideal exposure
> >> conditions.
> >>>> In all other respects digital is superior
> - in my
> >>>> experience.
> >>>> My Rolleiflex 6008i is not capable of
> producing
> >> colour
> >>>> pictures to match those from several of my
> digital
> >> cameras.
> >>>> 35mm has been behind for years.
> >>>> I am not aware of -anybody- with in depth
> >> experience of
> >>>> both who would agree with you.
> >>>> Perhaps I am going to get the first
> convincing
> >> information
> >>>> as a result of this email!
> >>>> best regards,
> >>>> Frank
> >>>>
> >>>> I am comparing Velvia, Provia, Kodachrome
> in
> >> Canon, Leica,
> >>>> Rollei and Mamiya film cameras (up to
> 6x7cm) with
> >> digital
> >>>> from Leica M8, Canon EOS 1Ds mk2 and Nikon
> D3.
> >> Most recently
> >>>> I have been trying a Nikon D3x but have
> not formed
> >> any
> >>>> conclusions yet since I have not shot with
> it
> >> enough.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12 Jan, 2009, at 16:13, Carlos Manuel
> Freaza
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> --- El lun 12-ene-09, Frank Dernie
> >>>> <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> escribió:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In all practical ways digital has
> exceeded
> >> the
> >>>> capability
> >>>>>> of film for some time. Certainly
> if there
> >> is an
> >>>> effect which
> >>>>>> one wishes to achieve, using a
> vintage LF
> >> lens for
> >>>> example,
> >>>>>> film may have to be the choice but
> that
> >> does not
> >>>> make film
> >>>>>> better, just an appropriate choice
> in some
> >>>> circumstances.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Film is the best choice when you need
> the
> >> highest
> >>>> image quality.-
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Carlos
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    Yahoo! Cocina
> >>>>> Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
> >>>>> http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> Rollei List
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Subscribe at
> >> rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >>>> 'subscribe'
> >>>>> in the subject field OR by logging
> into
> >>>> www.freelists.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Unsubscribe at
> >> rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> with
> >>>>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject
> field OR
> >> by
> >>>> logging into www.freelists.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Online, searchable archives are
> available at
> >>>>>
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Rollei List
> >>>>
> >>>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>
> >>>> - Subscribe at
> rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> with
> >>>> 'subscribe'
> >>>> in the subject field OR by logging into
> >> www.freelists.org
> >>>>
> >>>> - Unsubscribe at
> rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> with
> >>>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field
> OR by
> >> logging
> >>>> into www.freelists.org
> >>>>
> >>>> - Online, searchable archives are
> available at
> >>>>
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>     Yahoo! Cocina
> >>> Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
> >>> http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
> >>> ---
> >>> Rollei List
> >>>
> >>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>
> >>> - Subscribe at
> rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >> 'subscribe'
> >>> in the subject field OR by logging into
> >> www.freelists.org
> >>>
> >>> - Unsubscribe at
> rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> with
> >>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR
> by
> >> logging into www.freelists.org
> >>>
> >>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> >>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Rollei List
> >>
> >> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with
> >> 'subscribe'
> >> in the subject field OR by logging into
> www.freelists.org
> >>
> >> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with
> >> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by
> logging
> >> into www.freelists.org
> >>
> >> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> >> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >
> >
> >      Yahoo! Cocina
> > Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
> > http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
> > ---
> > Rollei List
> >
> > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'subscribe'
> > in the subject field OR by logging into
> www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with
> > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by
> logging into  
> > www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Online, searchable archives are available at
> > http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >
> 
> ---
> Rollei List
> 
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> 
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging
> into www.freelists.org
> 
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list



      Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: