Re: [Leica] M6 Shutter accuracy?

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

First, I am not sure whether this statement is correct. From the fair amount of
discussion of enlargers etc. on the list, I have the impression that a lot of
people still use traditional processes. However, it is true that many people
(myself included) use a good-quality film scanner and output on a good inkjet
printer (or dye-sub or whatever). Do those prints do justice to the Leica lenses?
One can argue about it forever. Personally, I do not doubt that a skilled
darkroom printer will be able to make a better print from one of my Leica
negatives or slides than I make on the computer. However, *I* am not a skilled
darkroom printer (I know what to do, but I simply do not have the time nor the
inclination to lock myself up in the basement for hours), and I can make a better
print on the computer than in the tray. My computer prints are pretty darn good,
as some LUGgers who have seen them can attest. And if I want to have a
traditional print made, I can take the computer print, go to a professional lab,
and ask them to make a print similar in tone, cropping etc. to the computer
print. In fact, I am having two prints made in this way this week, to give as a
present to someone. So traditional and computer-assisted processes can happily
co-exist.

As for your statement about Leica deliberately dropping the quality of its lenses
in the 60s, do you have any documentation for this? When I read for example Erwin
Puts's pages, I get the picture of a steady progression in optical design. Which
lenses that were introduced in that decade are of a lower quality than their
predecessors?

Nathan

DonjR43198@aol.com wrote, in part:

> Someone posted a message advising that the great majority of Leica "prints"
> are "scanned" rather than enlarger printed.  Could some of those who are
> "scanning" their prints enlighten us in regard to the quality provided by
> "scanning" versus prints from Tech Pan or Kodachrome negatives enlarged using
> Focomats, Durst L1200's or other really good enlargers with APO enlarging
> lenses.  It may be that "scanning" does not do justice to high quality camera
> equipment so there is no need for Leica to provide equipment that so awesome
> that prints and slides from Leica equipment is discernible with the eye from
> the equipment of other manufacturers.  As I recall, during the early 60's
> Leica had a vision that photographers were becoming very lazy and preferred
> to have the corner drug store process and print Kodacolor so the resolution
> of the lenses was dropped to enable the contrast level to be increased since
> contrast, not resolution, was the ticket for Kodacolor.  Maybe this
> cheapening of the manufacturing process is the natural progression of this
> march toward mediocrity.

- --
Nathan Wajsman
Overijse, Belgium

General photo page:  http://members.tripod.com/belgiangator/index.html
Belgium photo page: http://member.xoom.com/wajsman/index.htm
Motorcycle page:  http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/downs/1704/index.html