Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 13:36 23/12/98 -0800, you wrote : >I remember looking through a British book Wildlife Photography(er?) of the Year where tech details were listed along side the pix. Interestingly, Leica almost non-existant and, to my eye at least, the Minolta pix seemed to have the finest reproduction, exhibiting that smoothness that Leica is noted for. Which made me wonder. I have often noticed that Leica pix don't always reproduce well in publications, in color, at least. BW seems to be wonderful. I mentioned this to a Brooks Institute graduate who knows more about the technology of photography that anyone I've ever met (and does consulting for Nikon, Hasselblad and produces a line of underwater strobes). He said, "of course," and explained very carefully in terms only Erwin might understand why Leica lenses were not good for color reproduction by printing press, but were great for prints, especially BW. Guess I'll have to have him go over the reasoning again. There might be some interest (and argument) on the list. > >donal >-- >Donal Philby >San Diego ######### May I suggest to you Fulvio Roiter's books, especially the books on Venice (Venezia).All the pictures in color have been made with a Leica R gear. Your "Brooks Institute graduate who knows more about the technology of photography that anyone I've ever met" was probably exhausted.Wasn't he ? Dominique Pellissier