Re: [Leica] Is digital photography for real?

[Nathan Wajsman <nathan.wajsman@euronet.be>]

Alex,

After thinking for a couple of days, my reply to your post is something like this:
my answer to your question at the end is that the result is what matters, not the
brand or the technologies used. Of course, some brands and some technologies may
make it easier or harder to get a particular result, but that is immaterial.

In your discussion below you create a false dichotomy between the digital and
traditional darkroom. I am not sure that the difference is so great. In principle,
there are just as many equipment-related variables in the traditional darkroom that
can affect the final print: the quality of your enlarger lens, how well you have
aligned the enlarger, is the darkroom isolated from vibrations if you live in a
city etc. Many of the manipulations I do in Photoshop are exact electronic replicas
of things done in the darkroom: burning and dodging, contrast adjustments, exposure
adjustments, colour filtration. So, if you really want to study the pure image as
formed by the Leica lens, your only option is to look at the negatives and slides
on a lightboard with a loupe. But even then "pollutants" come in: how good is your
loupe, was the film processed correctly and so on.

In conclusion: equipment matters, but only insofar as it results in images that you
wanted. The other day I was photographing my 4-year old daughter and her classmates
at school, using my newly acquired Noctilux at f1.0 and 100-speed slide film. I was
able to get several good hand-held shots. These shots would not have been possible
with any other lens, unless I used a faster film and/or flash. In this case then,
equipment certainly mattered!

Nathan

Alex Hurst wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
>
> >I do not have the scanner you mentioned, but I have an Epson Stylus Photo 700.
>
> OK folks. Let's start from first premises. Most of us use Leicas to capture
> the initial image (in my case I use N***** as well). A very good start, but
> not the end of the story.
>
> Some of us then repair to _real_ darkrooms, and emerge the other end with
> _real_ prints.
>
> Some of us take a trip down to the local one-stop Photo, admire our prints,
> and file them away in obscurity.
>
> And then some of us process our images digitally. From time to time we even
> publish on the Web.
>
> What the digital route does is to add in so many variables, which make the
> whole debate over which lens is 'best'  slightly academic.
>
> F'rinstance, I can sharpen up digitally any lens which is not up to
> scratch. Likewise colour rendition etc. Not to mention cropping, dodging,
> and other traditional techniques.
>
> So the nub of the argument is something like this:
>
> 1) A photographer can have a vision of what he wants at the 'decisive moment'.
>
> 2) If he hasn't quite got it as he wants it, then photographic/digital
> manipulation may be quite in order to enable the photographer to express
> what he wants to express. (For 'he' please read 'she' - Tina and her
> sisters are the greatest!)
>
> 3) Quite logically - it's the final image that matters - not the kit it was
> taken with, or how it was achieved. It's a bit like asking Van Gogh which
> brushes and brands of paints he used.
>
> However, I'm an amateur, and I do the best that I can - digitally.
>
> I'm therefore very interested in the most direct and hassle-free route
> which reproduces something approaching the original experience.
>
> Lets just go through the steps if you're working with computers:
>
> 1) Decent input - basically a neg/pos of high quality from Leicas et al.
>
> 2) Most important - the photographer's vision of what he/she wants is required.
>
> 3) Choice of scanner/software
>
> 4) Choice of processing software (Photoshop etc.).
>
> 5) Choice of printer hardware/software.
>
> 6) Choice of output medium (Plastic/paper/web etc.)
>
> Counting back (apart from vision), that seems to me at least 10 quite
> deliberate digital choices - assuming that we're aiming to be faithful to
> the original. If you want to change it, then the choices are, of course,
> infinite.
>
> Which brings me back to square 1:
>
> What matters most? The lens/camera you took the shot with, or the result -
> however you achieved it?
>
> Slan
>
> Alex
>
> Alex Hurst
> Waterfall
> Nr. Cork
> Ireland
>
> Tel: +353 21 543 328 (H)
>        +353 21 270 907 (W)
>
> Fax: +353 21 271 248
> email: corkflor@iol.ie
> Home website: http://homepages.iol.ie/~corkflor/
> Business website: http://www.flowerlink.com/corkflorists



- --
Nathan Wajsman
Overijse, Belgium

Photography page:  http://members.tripod.com/~belgiangator/index.html
Motorcycle page:  http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/downs/1704/index.html