Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- ----Original Message----- >From: Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com> >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >I find it a bit contradictory to spend mountains of fortunes of hard >earned (or not so hardly earned) money on the ultimate quality in 35mm >photography, and then show enthusiasm or even satisfaction towards the >results provided by consumer level scanning and printing. "Ultimate quality" means different things to different people. While some people enjoy shooting resolution test patters to satisfy their thirst for high resolution lenses, I bought an M6 because I really enjoy using the camera. Linepairs per millimeter notwithstanding, I find that in my own photography, I get the best results using Leica lenses. >If one is ready to spend 10,000 USD on a full M system, one should maybe >not act like a low-end shopper when gathering digital capture, >processing and printing equipment. I for one did not spend $10,000 on my M system. If you did, you must have felt you needed a brand new M6 and 4 new lenses. I find nothing shameful about owning two lenses and purchasing good quality used equipment. Judging from other Leica users I've met and LUGers I've spoken to, all Leica users are not willing to burn their retirement funds to support their hobby. Regardless, I find the reasoning behind this statement flawed. Simply because you use premium camera equipment, one should spend $10,000 for a top-quality dye-sub printer or not make digital prints at all? By that line of reasoning are M photographers who do not shoot on a tripod with a cable release wasting the quality of their camera by failing to maximize the capability of their lenses? Or people who use faster-speed (lower resolution and more apparent grain) film rather than Kodakchrome 25? What about darkroom users who do not use the most expensive enlarger and lens money can buy? >Put side by side a 18 x 25 cm hand masked Ilfochrome or a high quality >enlargment from a good negative and the print out from any consumer >grade digital imaging system, and the differences will be more than >obvious. If one does not find these differences worthwhile of the >effort, then I sincerely question the motivations to get equipped with >high end cameras and lenses in the first place.... I don't recall saying that the Epson Stylus was better than Ilfochrome output, a statement which is clearly ridiculous. On the other hand, is an ilfochrome print which cost 100 times more than an injket print a worthwhile expenditure of money for an amature? I think not. I'm doing this for fun, not to break the bank. When I get a show in a gallery, I'll go ilfochrome. Until then, I'll spend the $75+ per print that I save on film and processing so I can enjoy my M6, rather than having one ilfochrome print made every three months. The quest for highest-quality output is not an issue when it comes to digital printing. Anyone who wants that clearly will go for ilfochrome, etc. On the other hand, I still maintain that the setup I described in my previous post will give accurate and pleasing prints. Regards, Shawn London