RE: [Leica] Cool Leica Pictures

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

On Wednesday, April 08, 1998 2:41 PM, Eric Welch 
[SMTP:ewelch@ponyexpress.net] wrote:
> There is no way the tonal modulation of my
> stained glass pictures would come through with a Stylus Epic and ISO 800 
film.

I know that of course: in the 'normal' photography world, your images of 
the stained glass shot through the 180mm f2.8 will most probably be very 
spectacular. Especially as projected slides, but also if you produce a nice 
glossy enlargement, or even get if you get them printed in a good quality 
magazine. They will be radically better than similar shots through a good 
P/S and ISO 800 film. I repeat this is not the case with my Web 
experiences.

> Maybe you need to calibrate your monitor, but there is no digital camera,
> except maybe the Leica S1, Leaf (or one of the other high end ones that 
cost
> $30,000)  that could match the tones in those pictures, even on the web. 
I
> know, I use a $14,000 (now $10,000) digital camera at work, and I know 
what
> its
> pictures look like. In ideal situations, it's darn close to film as long 
as
> you
> don't crop it much. But that's it. Film still outdoes it. And if you 
can't see
> the difference on the web, well, I won't argue that you can or can't. But 
I
> surely can.

We could do blind tests. Please check the CoolPix 900 info page on the 
Nikon site: some of the pictures there could serve as propaganda for Leica 
glass and high quality film. They are just plain perfect. On the Web. try 
this: http://www.nikonusa.com/products/imaging/images/moosebird.jpg

>  but they are beautiful pieces of art that people can see. And
> some of the quality of the images come through just fine. That's what 
matters.

That is true. I would not use them as showcase for Leica but as an example 
of fine church art within the framework of a series dedicated to such 
topics.

> Bokeh, no, probably not in most cases. Curvature of field? Shoot, show 
that in
> an 11x14 on the wall. Some people won't see it. Fine detail? Nope, you're
> right
> on that point. But the tonal modulation comes through. At least on my 
monitor.
> Computer monitors are more like slides projected on the screen, whereas 
prints
> are not as "bright."

My monitor at home is the standard semi-crappy 15" thing most people get 
with their PC. My graphic card only allows 64000 colours at 800 x 600. I 
get 24-bit at the office though.Your JPEG compressions are destructive and 
larger pictures would take too long to download. I think this is an average 
Web experience. The more I look at it, the more I believe black and white 
is better suited for Web scrutinity than colour.

Well, I'm packing my bags, my M6 + 21/35/50/90 and no notebook. Flying of 
to Marrakesh on Saturday, and shall check out real life colours :-)   Might 
(or might not) try to share them with you through the Web.

Friendly regards,
Alan
Brussels-Belgium.