[Leica] IMG:Nor Cal Spring Starts

[rgacpa at yahoo.com (Bob Adler)]

I think film, especially transparency, is a great humbler and teacher. It's 
good for the soul to go back to it occasionally (and good to exercise the 
lenses)...

My scans print large much better, with no up-ressing required, than my full 
frame 35mm digital (21MP).

The Hassy glass is made for film and the resolution is wonderful. If you 
look at this image:
http://www.rgaphoto.com/coastal/content/San_Miguel_Hills_and_Tree_MASTER_large.html
On the end of one of the upper branches on the right side of the tree, you 
see a black blob. Zooming in, you can see it's a redwing blackbird. You see 
the two red spots and the shape of the bird on the branch.

Now maybe that would survive an up-res from my Canon 21MP to a 40x60 print, 
but I doubt it. Delicate features are lost when you up-res. I've seen a 
whole daytime quarter moon disappear (Steve Barbour has a print, 17x22, that 
had no upward resolution applied from an M8 that shows the moon). Printed at 
180dpi. If I increase the size of that image and keep the dpi at 180 (pretty 
much the minimum for my printer) the moon disappears. This happens whether I 
use native PS tools or Genuine Fractals.

I have another image:
http://www.rgaphoto.com/coastal/content/Sunset001_40x40_large.html
where you can see a guy standing out on the end of the peninsula in blue 
jeans. He's on the end of the peninsula just left of center of the image. 
6x6 scanned. I have a print 40x40 of that hanging. With a magnifying glass 
you can see he has his shirt off and has a thin crop of chest hairs. I don't 
think you'd get that with 35mm digital at 40x40. The guy wouldn't be there; 
went through the black hole of up-ressing into a parallel universe. Chest 
hairs became strings...

Now I don't know a thing about MF digital backs; perhaps and most likely 
their resolution is as good. But you have to spend an awful lot of money to 
equal the quality of film if you're going to print large. Compared to a 
digital back, I've spent peanuts. Even my Imacon scanner was just a tich 
more than a new Nikon 9000ED (though now that they're discontinued that may 
not be true).

So for large prints, I still like film. And for other reasons. No need to 
limit myself. Different tools for the situations. Works real well for me and 
I am very pleased when I see that final print....
Of course, your mileage varies...
 Bob Adler
Palo Alto, CA
http://www.rgaphoto.com




________________________________
From: Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com>
To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
Sent: Mon, April 19, 2010 9:06:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] IMG:Nor Cal Spring Starts

> True, but...
> "ain't nothin' like the real thing baby..."
>  Bob Adler
> Palo Alto, CA
> http://www.rgaphoto.com


I would agree with you if I was using the film in an enlarger to make a
print. Not just scanning it and putting it in my hardrive with all the rest
of the captures.

[Rabs]
Mark William Rabiner




_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information