[LRFlex] Re: 20D vs. K64
- From: Bob Palmieri <rpalmier@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:09:05 -0500
Apologies for possible double-postings; I believe our E-server is
behaving oddly...
On 6/19/05 7:28 PM, I wrote:
Y'all -
Well... I had planned to post a little comparison, seeing as how I
shot
an iris a coupla weeks ago through my 60 Macro-Elmarit with both the
20D and an SL loaded with Kodachrome 64.
Unfortunately, what I see through the low and high-powered magnifiers
on the lightbox just doesn't seem reproducible, at least not with my
Epson 4870 and my limited skillset in scanning. Do any of you have
any
quick tips in terms of scanning software and profiling that might
allow
me to give the slide a fair shake? Maybe I oughtta just take it over
to the lab for a drumscan....
Because after passing through my scanner the results come out clearly
in favor of the digibox. And, truth be told, at 30x magnification the
grain in the 'chrome doesn't look all that great, compared to the
smoothness of the Canon RAW file.
But the slide has a gorgeous 3D sculpted lusciousness that I doubt I
can get from the Canon's files...
This little experience has also made me realize how long it's been
since I actually viewed slides projected with good gear in a dark
room...
Then, on Jun 20, 2005, at 12:01 AM, Doug Herr wrote:
These kinds of comparisons are always difficult because one form of the
image has to be converted to the other's native form to compare them.
The
slide is going to lose a lot of detail, gradation and shadow/highlight
detail unless you get a very high-resolution scan, and the digital file
loses a lot when you output it to a slide via a film recorder. I'd
say that
whatever workflow is natural and feasible for you is how you should
compare
them. So what if the slide is better if you have to get an expensive
drum
scan to get everything out of it? So what if the digital is better
unless
you need to project it? What matters is how you're going to use the
pictures.
Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com
Doug -
Somebody said something to the effect of: "Only weak art needs
perfection in its reproduction."
As usual, my response to that position is: "It depends..."
A nasty wire spool recording of Charlie Parker playing in a club
contains enough of the important information to be very exciting to
those who have ears for such things. On the other hand, I have some
photo books that contain reproductions of B&W photos that we own
original prints of and I'll tellya; if I hadn'd seen an original we
never would have pursued the purchase.
My 4x5 shootin' buddy sez that when it comes to nature photography
('specially B&W), textural details become very central. He also sez
that, for this reason, us pea-shooter shooters develop (we hope) a
very good eye for larger graphic forms. My take, after having gone out
on a few shoots with this fellow, is that the number of shots that he
just couldn't get 'cuz the bush was blowing in the breeze was bummin'
me out, man. I found myself picturing Ansel at Point Lobos watching
the Sasquatch climbing into the saucer with a resigned slump in his
shoulders...
And many of us cling to the idea that having a righteously rich
"original" representation, like a Kodachrome slide, potentially allows
us to go back later when we have the motivation/money and pull out a
really high quality "final" version.
There's also the issue of many of us improving our haul of good snaps
and refining our skills more rapidly as a result of banging away with
the digiboxes.
But in the end, of course, you're right. The "final form" is the
thing; I might even say that the "final viewer's experience" is The
Thing. I won't be inviting prospective viewers over to my condo for a
voyeuristic gander through the loupes (list menbers excepted.) But I
may do something as radical as to secure the services of a really good
color printer and bypass this much-loved home computer-based tweaking
process. So, being a bit of a bet-hedger, there are gonna be times that
I'm gonna carry an SL and a 20D, especially on those woodland hikes.
Long live the glorious world of horses for courses.
Digital examples at:
http://gallery.leica-users.org/june_2005_postings
There's a snap of my wife that I was using to illustrate something else
on another list (heavily cropped 35 'Cron/M-6/Neopan 1600), the rest
are 20D W/60 Macro-Elmarit 'cept for the dandelion, which was shot with
a D60. (Lovin' that lens's bokeh). And yes, I did drop that
unidentified "thingie" (someone enlighten me on this thing) onto the
flowertop for contrast.
Bob Palmieri
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
