Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I KNOW that you can't possibly be suggesting that the media used to capture images formed by light passing through a lens accounts for your M images being "more emotional." ;-) B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of David Rodgers Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:40 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: Vs: [Leica] Digital vs Film I shot both digital (G2) and a Leica M at a friends house last week. The Leica M images were far and away more emotional. Here's a shot of one of the children taken with the 35/1.4 ASPH. http://www.lightcurves.com/portraits/port4.htm I scanned the HP5+ neg scanned on a Leafscan. The file was a whopping 4000 x 5600 pixels with excellent tonality. I upsampled slightly with GF and printed 12x18 on Somerset Enhanced Photo Velvet using Piezography. The print looked very "film-like". A Leica image is like a hand written letter. You can send the same words in an e-mail as you can on paper. But a hand written letter has a personal touch that's difficult to duplicate digitally. FWIW, digital = e-mail; modern AF SLR = electric typewriter; Leica M = quill and paper. Each has it's place. Dave - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html