Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2021/06/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Weight is a different factor altogether. All my Nikon telephotos up to 500mm are those I can hand hold, because I miss fewer shots that way. To me a lens which is a stop slower is an acceptable compromise to getting more keepers, but as ever, YMMV! The new "Enhance" function in PS and Lightroom is almost as good as Topaz Gigapixel. I bought Gigapixel some time ago, but I would not buy it today, for the same reason as choosing lenses - though Gigapixel is undoubtedly a tad superior when I am pixel peeping, there is no discernible difference on a print, more so at normal viewing distances. I agree 100% with you, though, that modern software negates a lot of the preconceptions that we have been carrying around, and that giving many of these a trial run is a worthwhile activity. Cheers Jayanand On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:01 AM Paul Roark via LUG <lug at leica-users.org> wrote: > I am also a hiker. So I consider size and weight. The Leica 135 at 4 1/4 > inches and 478 grams is much nicer to carry than the Canon zoom at 6 1/2 > inches and 787 grams. So, if I can capture more information with less size > and weight, that counts, big time. > > As to the importance of sharpness, my first one person show (in about 1981) > was, in effect, a market test. While the people loved the color I was > doing, I regularly saw people walking up close to the prints and then > backing off. The sharpness of those (original 35mm slides) was not, in my > view, good enough for gallery display. (Though I was proud to sell one to > Elizabeth Taylor's mother, and the entire show ultimately sold for > corporate decor -- which was not really my target.) For large, wall > display prints, 35mm film was simply not going to do the job. Hasselblads > ruled that segment for a reason, and as a result of this original show and > the feedback I received, I bought a Rollei SL66, which was up to the > standards that were expected. After the show in Palm Springs, it turned > into a traveling show through the greater Los Angeles area. By that time I > had just a few black and white prints that were taken with the SL66. I > grew up with a darkroom (my Dad's buddy was Todd Walker), so doing B&W was > easy for me. In the L.A. show, which was in the lobby of, I believe, what > was then called the Bonaventure, the new medium format B&W prints were all > stolen. None of the color prints were stolen. That was great feedback. > Sharp B&W became my target/main medium. > > Although I started to experiment with digital image capture early in the > transition, the Leica M9 was really the turning point for me. MF film and > the Rollei SL66 became relics from the past (though the SL66 holds a > special place in my heart and is in a display case in my home now). > > I "sat" at Gallery Los Olivos today. One of the prints on display was my > "Pompeii Basilica to Mt. Vesuvius." (See > https://www.paulroark.com/Italy.html and scroll down.) Even though the > print is very large, people still walk up to it and check out the details. > So do I. > > So, while it's probably not true for all people and styles, for what I do, > sharpness matters -- but so does ability to comfortably carry the > equipment. My simple testing of lenses by shooting the distant top of the > Santa Inez mountains between where I live and Santa Barbara, has been a > significant and easy part of what I do that, I'm convinced, has played a > significant role in my ability to find the equipment and software that > helps me sell my prints and enjoy doing photography. > > I might add that we may now be at a transition point in terms of software. > At least for people like me, Topaz's AI Gigapixel is a quantum leap over PS > sharpening. It's the first example I have any experience with that > suggests "artificial intelligence" may be more than hype and BS. It's just > another tool, but it's quickly become one I regularly use. If you like > sharp images, you really ought to check it out. > > Cheers, > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com > .............................................. > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:15 AM Ken Iisaka <ken at iisaka.com> wrote: > > > The sad truth is that not all the pixels end up in the final print. > > > > What I've always enjoyed about making large prints in a darkroom is that > I > > could make prints which could be enjoyed both up close and from a more > > "normal" viewing distance. > > > > However, I've had several 24x36" (60x90cm) prints made from images > captured > > on SL2 and Q2 recently. Invariably, I see that the printing resolution is > > in the order of 100 dpi or even less, that only about 8mp of information > > ends up on the print. When viewed up close, all the details in the > original > > image files are lost. > > > > I'd like to know which printers would not downscale the image to an > > artificially low dpi. > > > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 09:37, Jayanand Govindaraj via LUG < > > lug at leica-users.org> wrote: > > > > > IMHO, image quality matters to the extent it is discernible on a print > > of a > > > size you want to show/exhibit, whatever, at normal viewing distances. > > > Beyond that it means nothing. If you are not exhibiting/selling prints > > of a > > > size equal to a 300% magnification on the monitor, taking normal > viewing > > > distances into account, because these are definitely not going to be > > viewed > > > from 12-15 inches away, why bother? > > > > > > Cheers > > > Jayanand > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 7:40 PM Paul Roark via LUG < > lug at leica-users.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Jayanand wrote: > > > > > > > > > How will you ever make out that level of difference in a print of > any > > > > size? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that the magnifications of the prints are different. > > > > > > > > If image quality doesn't matter, why does Leica exist? > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > www.PaulRoark.com > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:02 AM Paul Roark via LUG < > > lug at leica-users.org > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I posted a same-size screen grab of the Leica 135 and Canon 200 > at > > > > > > > > https://www.paulroark.com/Leica-apo-135-v-Canon-L-70-200-at-200.JPG > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > They look very similar, but I think the ridge line of the 135 M > > has a > > > > > > slight advantage. > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > www.PaulRoark.com > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 8:59 AM Sonny Carter via LUG < > > > > > lug at leica-users.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > pix? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sonny > > > > > > > http://sonc.com <http://sonc.com/look/> > > > > > > > Natchitoches, Louisiana > > > > > > > 1714 > > > > > > > Oldest Permanent Settlement in the Louisiana Purchase > > > > > > > > > > > > > > USA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 10:57 AM Paul Roark via LUG < > > > > > lug at leica-users.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought this group would appreciate the results of this > > > telephoto > > > > > > > > comparison test. The question was, between my Canon 70 - 200 > > > f/4 L > > > > > > > series > > > > > > > > lens at 200mm and my Leica 135mm, which could actually render > > > > distant > > > > > > > > details the best. Both were on a Sony a7c. The Leica 135 > won. > > > > And > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > was at optimum apertures and center. Off axis and wide open > > the > > > > > > > > differences would be more pronounced. (The Canon zoom will > > soon > > > > be > > > > > on > > > > > > > > eBay.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > www.PaulRoark.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Leica Users Group. > > > > > > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > > > > information > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Leica Users Group. > > > > > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > > > information > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Leica Users Group. > > > > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > > information > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Leica Users Group. > > > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Leica Users Group. > > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Leica Users Group. > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ken Iisaka > > first name at last name dot org or com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >