Re: [Leica] Digital and Leica, etc.....

[Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

At 11:46 PM -0400 9/29/02, tlianza wrote:
>Hi to all,
>
>I have been reading the various comments on the topic of digital and leica
>imaging that have been going around on this list.  My background is imaging.
>I designed my first solid state scanner in 1978.  I have a Masters degree in
>Photographic Science, I have designed lenses and digital imaging systems my
>entire adult life.  The following are my observations.  I own Leica M and R
>cameras as well as Nikons.  I own the new Nikon Digital D100 and I have run
>a series of tests using the Nikon against the Leicas and Nikon analog
>cameras.  I scanned a number of samples balanced the color etc in photoshop
>and then had them printed on Fuji frontier printer at 10X15".  I then showed
>the images to 10 observers and had them choose the "best" image.  In all but
>one case, they selected the digital camera images.  The one case where there
>was some uncertainty was an image captured on an R6 with the 80mm Summilux.
>
>The one thing that became striking evident was that test was strikingly
>unfair from one point of view, and totally fair from another. The inclusion
>of the scanner/sensor MTF basically negated the resolution and MTF quality
>of the Leica combinations. The output of the test was limited by the
>scanning and printing process.  I ran some numerical simulations and found
>that a diffraction limited scanner, would still not beat the Digital in
>terms of subjective quality, without substantial image processing.  The
>problem with the image processing step was that it would enhance grain noise
>and that just would not work at big enlargements.  The noise levels in the
>Nikon D100 were always lower than those in the Leica.  If you are working in
>a pure digital workflow, the digital camera normally wins from the
>standpoint of subjective quality.  I don't think that you can get the same
>quality as the >6 mega pixel cameras regardless of the scanner.  If you are
>sourcing images that are going to be electronically reproduced, the
>comparison is fair: it's going to take more time and work to get a good
>image using the analog camera. You are probably better off just using the
>digital in this case.
>
>If you are agonizing over absolute objective quality, a much fairer test is
>comparing the analog image produced using an enlarger and conventional
>techniques to the printed image from the digital system  Now, in this case,
>differences due to resolution can be seen.  The resolution of the analog
>image is greater without question, but the subjective testing still leans
>towards the digital system due to the apparent sharpness. If an individual
>takes out a loupe, the analog image wins hands down. Look at normal viewing
>distances, the issue becomes far less obvious.  One of the big difference
>between leica lens design and other camera manufacturers is leicas obsession
>with the LOW FREQUENCY mtf.   The leica lenses resolve really well, but they
>are outstanding in terms of contrast in the lower frequencies. When enlarged
>to 8X10 the area of mtf that the leica designer seems to stress falls in the
>"sweet spot" of the visual mtf which peaks at a fairly low angular
>frequency.  Proper digital processing can simulate this, so without the
>loupe, it's tough to see.
>
>The work that I have done convinced me that I could reliably produce
>subjectively good images up to 10X15 using a digital camera. More important,
>the image quality of the digital camera was overwhelmingly selected by other
>observers.  My gut tells me that I will have to work real hard to get a
>better image in the darkroom, but I might be able to do it.  I'll just have
>to run the test when I get the time. There is no question that these digital
>cameras are capable of great results.  I have not met a single photographer
>that has NOT embraced digital for SOME aspects of their work after doing a
>side by side comparison. Will digital replace film? In some areas it has, in
>some areas it never will.... I Always carry an analog camera body in the
>digital kit. I'm reminded of the photographer who was trapped in the Church
>in Bethlehem...her battery ran out the first day.   Certainly, if you're in
>the field, you are taking a big risk.  At extremes of temperature and
>humidity you are taking a big risk relying on digital.  If you work in
>Primarily in Black and White, digital is a waste of time, in my opinion. On
>the other hand, once you've printed a color image on a Fine Art paper, it's
>very hard to go back to RA-4 or Ciba prints.
>
>
>
>
>Tom Lianza
>Technical Director
>Sequel Imaging Inc.
>25 Nashua Rd.
>Londonderry, NH 03053
>tlianza@sequelimaging.com

Good to hear from someone who has both technical experience and is 
using film and digital. I've borrowed a D60 for a few days, but 
otherwise am fully analog (except for a 2Mp P&S). The D60 was 
impressive, but wasn't as yet fully convincing, but a couple of days 
is probably too little time to judge something like this. The overall 
impression I got was that with some learning experience, color prints 
from the D60 up to 8x10 or maybe even a little larger might be 
'better' (take that as you will) than prints from regular 100ISO 
film, but they would start breaking up much more severely at greater 
enlargements. Possibly there is a workflow involving something like 
Genuine Fractals that might help this.

I'll have to try out more stuff and get better at managing the 
digital images before I'll convince myself, but by then someone might 
have made an affordable 12 or 16Mp body :-).

As you said, B&W is something else again, as is the experience of 
shooting with a Leica M.

- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html