RE: [Leica] [Fwd: scanner]

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

Slobodan,

So, your response is, you don't know, and can't say, what's "missing".  The
answer is, there is nothing missing...in fact, you can get better images
(and it's far more technically advanced) by scanning, than you can out of
chemical printing, since you have control of the tonal curves far better
with scanned film...and you can modify setpoints (dMax and dMin) to expand
the tonal range.  There are so many advantages to digital scanning and
printing, and so far, I haven't found a downside...and I've got over 30
years of experience in a high end chemical darkroom.  My darkroom experience
and scanning experience IS field experience, NOT bench top flap.  Of course,
getting good results assumes the scanner operator is a good scanner
operator, as would be the same with a chemical print requiring a good
chemical darkroom operator too.

I don't know anything about the presentation you are talking about, so I can
not comment on it, but if it is as you say, it's not a good example of what
can be done, and you should not judge ALL scanning of film by one bad
example.

Regards,

Austin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of S Dimitrov
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 8:52 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] [Fwd: scanner]
>
>
> I don't have to compare, at least at this stage of the game. I don't
> have the time to waste. I'd rather do it sitting at a coffee house than
> testing _consumer_ equipment. I've owned over 50, maybe 60-can't seem to
> remember, Leica lenses, and that's including a variety of printing
> lenses. So I'm not exactly coming in from a position lacking experience.
> That's field experience, not bench top, where the darndest critters come
> out of the woodwork just to make one's day really interesting.
> What it means, is that for the time being I will only print my Leica
> 35mm exhibition work with my V35, period.
> If you want to see what's missing, check out the travelling exhibit on
> New York put together by the _concerned _ photographers. The
> presentation , with all due respect to the casualties, was enough to
> make me puke. I can't countenance placing my work in front of the public
> in such a technically primitive manner.
> Slobodan Dimitrov
>
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > > As far as I'm concerned there is nothing compatible with what
> I get from
> > > my Leica optics, even as close as some other product might come. That
> > > missing 5-10% from brand X is glaring, and unacceptable.
> > > Slobodan Dimitrov
> >
> > Slobodan,
> >
> > WHAT do you believe is missing?  What SPECIFIC aspect of a
> scanner is not
> > sufficient for your images?  I am looking for a specific
> technical aspect
> > that you claim a current midrange+ scanner doesn't "get" from your Leica
> > images.
> >
> > Austin

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html