[LRFlex] Re: To 20D or Not 20D, that is the question.
- From: Scott Gardner <scottgee1@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:43:30 -0800 (PST)
Julian, well said!
You are smarter than I am because you made the time to test digital before
making a decision. I was, and continue to be, seduced by the instant
gratification it provides. In fact, it is quite useful in certain situations.
I make formal business portraits for some clients and the ability to shoot pix,
display them on a large screen and decide on the 'keeper(s)' immediately saves
everyone time and money. Given that the final destination of such pix are Web
sites and brochures, optimal quality is not an issue.
Can't speak for others of course but what draws me to Leica is superior optical
performance. My first job out of college was selling for, then managing a
high-end audio store. I always counseled my clients to spend their money on
the qualities they could perceive AND enjoy. It's clear to me that most people
do not actually *see* the qualities on which many of the folks in this group
place high value. Much of what I see in print media offends my eyes - out of
focus, garish, high contrast images, both photographs AND art. No wonder
digital is so quickly eclipsing analog processes on so many fronts - it makes
it easy to create such images.
You quite correctly point to work-flow as the most significant bottleneck in
the digital process. With film, we simply shoot the best images we can and
hand it off to a qualified professional who we pay to handle the rest of the
process. For those doing a lot of shooting, it's important to do a
cost:benefit analysis involving how much their time is worth. In my early
PhotoShop days, I would spend hours working on a single image trying to get it
'just right'. To be honest, they rarely met my expectations. HOWEVER, I would
to the same thing in a darkroom as well until I found a lab that knew how to
make my work look 'good'.
Now, my digital tweaks take only a short time, my monitor is calibrated to my
lab's printer and we share the workload.
Michael Reichmann has a useful overview of his workflow and the 'digital
negative' concept here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/process.shtml
My 2 cents worth . . . /Scott Gardner
Julian W <julianw123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have been following the discussion about Leica and
Canon 20D. Allow me to add my 1-cent worth, or just
express my humble opinion. I based on 2 months
experience on a "loan" 10D (with Canon lens) ? did not
get around to buying the Leica-Canon adaptor.
1) Using digital body does not mean fast turnaround
time.
Contrary to common believe, digital SLR photography
does not always means faster turnaround time. Why?
Well, I am assuming, when one uses a digital SLR, one
is expecting to squeeze all the possible quality out
of the sensor. So one has to use RAW format. Importing
RAW, even with some automatic software like, Capture1,
is no easy task. And after it has been ?converted? to
TIFF, it still need twicking in Photoshop ? levels etc
etc. And as I was a newbie in converting RAW, I found
myself spending more time than necessary in trying to
get the setting just about right. It was not as easy
as I expected. Previously, I have been using a Sony
717 ? in this camera, most of the adjustment has been
made in-camera. Once loaded to the PC, it was most or
less there ? a quick fix in levers, some sharpening
and maybe a little color balance ? it is done. Not so
for the RAW stuff from 10D (or 20D), and if I might
add, the images coming out of the camera is very
?flat? and ?uninteresting? images prior to editing. I
guess that is line with the ?pro? concept of 10D and
20D ? not to perform any in-camera processing, and
allowing the user to have full control on his PC.
2) Digital sensor has its limitations.
One reason why I went for Leica was the ability of the
lens to differentiate the subtle differences, that
most other makes will not be able to capture. I
believe, the limitation of the digital sensors,
(including those in 20D ? my friend got the 20D, so
that?s why I get to play with the 10D more) will not
allow the capture of these subtle differences, as
compared to .... taking on slide and scanning with a
good slide scanner.
So bring me to the conclusion, with desktop slide
scanner getting faster and better (like the Konica
Minolta 5400), and not to mention cheaper, why not
still shoot slides and get the scanned?
That was my conclusion a few years ago, when I had to
decide, to move to digital fully or remain in analog.
I choose analog because, I want to capture the best
possible ?master copy? ? and in my case, on slides. As
and when I need it, I will scan to digital. At that
time, the ?best affordable slide scanner? was the
Minolta Dual Scan with 2820 dpi. My rational is, the
places that I visit, I probably would not have the
chance to visit a second time in the very near future.
If I had taken the picture with a digital camera, and
if somehow the picture was not up to the quality that
I am after, I cannot ?rescan? the file. It is done,
and fixed to the maximum pixels that it offered.
However, with slides, I can always wait .. and a new
scanner will arrive, and I can always rescan those
slides, and most likely, the newer scanner will be
able to capture even more tonality and a wider density
range.
Well, this is just my humble opinion.
... Julian W
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Other related posts:
