Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/12/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 04:14 PM 12/27/2002 -0500, Mike Durling wrote: >Hey Rob, Interesting comparison. You can see some digital noise in the >orange stripe in the background and on the goalie's jersey. Of course >there is grain all over the film image. One is not necessarily better >than the other, just different. The digital file seems to have some edge >effects which amplify the apparent sharpness. > >To some degree these factors are manipulatable in software. I would be >interested in seeing what the original scan looked like. Green and grainy ;-) >Thanks, > >Mike D > >Robert G. Stevens wrote: >>I developed the 800 speed Fuji and when comparing them, the digital has >>the edge at this speed. Keep in mind that my digital will only make >>decent prints up to about 8x10. >>Both images taken from the same spot with the same lens in the same >>period of the same game. This means the same magnification. I had to >>crop the film scan down to the same size as the digital. >>http://www.robsteve.com/images/IRC/digital.jpg >>http://www.robsteve.com/images/IRC/film.jpg >>The film had a lot more grain and took a lot of work in PhotoShop >>correcting the colours and dealing with the grain. Digital wins here. >>If I was shooting strobes, scanned slide film would be superior. >>For list members with high speed internet, below is the full size digital >>file, saved as a 75% quality jpeg. This is right off the camera without >>any fancy PhotoShop work done to it. It is about 600k. >>http://www.robsteve.com/images/IRC/LeNeveauLRG.jpg >>This is the film scan after having some Photoshop actions done on it to >>decrease noise and grain. These actions also tend to soften the detail a >>bit. I sized it to be about the same size as the digital file. >>http://www.robsteve.com/images/IRC/filmLRG.jpg >>My impression is that if you have the light, shoot film. Otherwise, >>digital does a fine job in difficult lighting, colour balance wise. If >>you are doing nature or scenics, the digital results will disappoint you >>unless you are only aiming for making smaller prints. >> >>Regards, >>Robert >> >>At 07:04 PM 12/26/2002 -0500, Edward Caliguri wrote: >> >>>Robert - >>> On my email computer monitor (Mac 17" CRT) it looks pretty darn good! >>>Was that the 400 2.8? Also, when performing your comparison, can you try a >>>side by side PRINT comparison (either a good ink jet or preferably a Fuji >>>frontier or Lambda print) and let us know? I find that sometimes monitor >>>comparisons are not true to form. >>> I use the Modular System and 400 6.8 for wildlife, and can pick up a >>>used D30 body in new condition pretty cheap as folks trade them in; I think >>>I will now! >>> Ed >>> >>> > I was using my Leica lens with a Canon D2000 digital last night. It >>> gives >>> > pretty good results. I was also shooting with an EOS 300mm L lens >>> and the >>> > Leica seemed to do a better job, even on a lowly digital. I was using a >>> > Leica to EOS adapter. These are available on the cameraquest site. >>> >>>-- >>>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html >> >>-- >>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > >-- >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html