RE: [Leica] Wonders of digital & leica

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Mark,
The "master" concept is a very interesting way of defining the original 
piece of emulsion and the respect it deserves. I can relate to that. I can 
also relate to the evidence of the relative evolution stages of optical 
engineering and IT developments. And I agree that current digital SOHO 
output hardware/software has its seductions and a certain level of 
efficiency. Photoshop is much easier and much faster than anything based on 
darkroom instruments and chemistry.

I guess the main difference is what you call the  "12 inches" viewing 
distance limit that is required  in order not to "betray" the investment in 
high end optics. My position is to use the SOHO digital chain for web 
viewing and even proof prints, and to respectfully bow to the superior 
results from high end 'darkroom' neg and slide prints when it comes to 
produce the definitive output, the one that is sold, shown or given.

What use is the 'perfect master' if you decide to wait for another few 
years before getting an adequate output ? The 'Leica level' output 
technologies ARE readily available, and have been for decades, at very 
affordable price levels, but not on our desktops. Yet.

Friendly regards,
Alan
Brussels-Belgium

On Saturday, July 18, 1998 5:50 PM, Mark [SMTP:mark@steinberg.net] wrote:
> i think alan raises an interesting point regarding the the willingness
> to invest in glass and our sudden caution when it comes to investing
> in whatever we choose to do on the "post production of the neg/slide"
> part of the process.
>
> i have a few thoughts on this. consider the taking the photo as
> input and viewing the photo as output.
>
> your negative or slide is a master. it holds the actual image, and
> represents the "last word". the "better" that you can make it, the
> "better" your ultimate achievement will be. it makes sense to
> approach the attainment of that master with a keen eye for quality.
> leica glass helps attain great masters in this context. the optics
> that assist us in achieving this goal are highly developed. in a sense,
> leica optics represent the "last word" in development. no doubt there
> are incremental improvements to be offered in the future, and
> the weight of the noctilux indicates that some progress could be made
> in the physical component of lens design. yet, it could be argued that
> we have reached the 95th percentile point of achievable optical
> performance.
>
> all of us on this mailing list use computers. we know from experience
> that the computers we purchase today are by no means "the last
> word". they may be "the latest word", but we are well aware they
> will make bulky doorstops in four years time. hands up the number of
> us that believe our current computer technology represents even the
> 50th percentile point of achievable computer performance ?
>
> printer and scanning technologies press ahead at a somewhat slower
> pace, but anyone who purchased a dot-matrix printer 10 years ago
> and an epson 700 recently can offer examples of the amazing progress
> in this area. i have an hp laserjet, any of the 7 computers in the
> house can output excellent looking b&w line art, letters, and reasonable
> grayscale graphics. it prints a page in a matter of seconds. i am
> very confident that within two years an equivalent investment will
> offer the graphic output of the epson too.
>
> so. given that one technology (optics) is highly developed and the
> other (computing) is still evolutional, it is hardly surprising that
> we approach their respective "flush mechanisms" with different
> attitudes. one, optics, is a stable and evolved technology that
> produces our masters. the other, computing, is an instable and
> evolving technology that produces results from those masters.
>
> we can output the master again and again. we can capture it once.
>
> something else.
>
> using the current inkjet technology i can produce results, however
> temporary, that are demonstrably superior to those that are achieved
> by our local photo lab, when observed at a distance greater than 12".
>
> closer than 12", the results i achieve with the inkjet are nearly
> blemish-free whereas the photo lab's output is sharper. there is a
> trade off.
>
> so. while it is true that i cannot achieve justice for the optics
> of the leica with my inkjet, i can overcome many of the physical
> realities of photography (dust & scratches) with photoshop, and,
> having done so, create essentially identical reproductions of that
> achievement. i can also retouch, adjust, rotate, crop, enlarge, etc.
> in a certain sense, i can take the "master capture" (the slide or
> negative) and transform it into a "master image", ready for output
> via any of several viewable media (inkjet, dye sub, web, photocd, etc).
>
> i guess this started out with an assertion that cibachrome is fabulous,
> and surely it is. then alan mentioned the intersting difference in
> approach between input and output in terms of financial outlay.
>
> i am aware of cibachrome's strengths, yet i am not taking advantage
> of them. i have observed myself the reluctance that overcomes me
> when considering spending two "NU"s  (Noctilux Units) on computer-
> based printing technology. i think i have reasons. i outline them
> above.
>
> be well, happy shooting,
>
> mark