Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/01/31

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] digital in low light
From: Eric Welch <eric@jphotog.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:31:58 -0800
References: <152.29b08df6.2d4d03bc@aol.com> <00cd01c3e84d$f159b5e0$388a8418@symkeehx5nw8g8> <00ca01c3e866$fb720e10$6401a8c0@basecamp2win> <401C62A8.5000907@osheaven.net>

Color accuracy, much better quality at ISO 1,600 and 3200 (compared to  
color film, not black and white), less reciprocity failure with  
ultra-long exposures.

I say color accuracy, but just yesterday, I found a color that not only  
film, but digital can't render right. I photographed a pariba  
tourmaline. The color is a very intense blue/green that is highly  
prized. Actually, you see the two colors depending on which angle the  
facets are in relation to the light. (We call it pleochroism.) The  
stone was nicely cut, no inclusions, and it was almost 7 carats - at  
about $20,000 per carat. Gorgeous. But I could NOT get my Canon D60 to  
get it right. And one of the best gem photographers doesn't seem to be  
able to do it with film either if any past photos I've seen are  
evidence. Photoshop at 16 bits couldn't get it right either, holding  
the stone up to the computer screen. The color is simply outside the  
gamut of any photographic process I have access to.

Some things are just not possible with any medium. They all have  
limits. And in some ways, digital actually produces superior photos. In  
other ways they don't. You have to see it and judge for yourself if you  
like it and it serves your purpose. Or whether film might be better.  
That's the fun of being an amateur photographer. Economics doesn't have  
to enter into it!

I still have a fondness for the black and white photos that lenses and  
films/chemicals from the 40s and 50s produced. The work of  
Cartier-Bresson, Kertresz, Erwitt, Gene Smith. Those are the  
photographers I got to know first of all. (And many others - Ansel  
Adams, etc.) They shaped my vision of what good photography is. And so  
I guess I should be shooting with old Leicas and new digitals. But  
where do I find 40 year old Tri-X? :-)

You have to see it in real life. But in most cases, digital cameras  
give me much more accurate color. And the best way to get it? Drape a  
coffee filter over the lens, open up a stop and a half and take a shot  
and do a custom white balance. :-) I guess it's because coffee filters  
are bleached? No real idea why it works.

Eric Welch
Carlsbad, CA
http://www.jphotog.com

There are 2 theories to arguing with a woman... neither works.  - Will  
Rogers.
On Jan 31, 2004, at 6:21 PM, sam wrote:

> I don't understand why you say digital outperforms film. In what way?
>
> Sam S
>
>
> Jim Laurel wrote:
>> Well, I can't speak for other DSLRs, but in my experience, the Canon  
>> 1Ds and
>> 10D outperform film at every ISO rating.  I am a long-tom Noctilux  
>> user, but
>> after using these cameras for a while, I must admit that I now reach  
>> for the
>> DSLRs for shooting low light.  It has to be said, though, that the  
>> Noctilux
>> still produces a look you cannot get anywhere else.
>> Now, I know someone will say that you can't tell much from a 640px  
>> long jpg,
>> but here are some snaps:
>> Ali in his tent near Mhamid, Maroc.  Canon 1Ds with EF 70-200 f2.8 IS  
>> USM (a
>> truly amazing lens) -- 1/25th sec @ f2.8  ISO 400
>> http://www.spectare.com/gallery/Maroc%2003%20Gallery/source/ 
>> 20cw1382.htm
>> My kids by firelight.  Canon 10D with EF 35mm f2.0 -- 1/20th sec @  
>> f2.0  ISO
>> 800
>> http://www.spectare.com/gallery/Maroc%2003%20Gallery/source/ 
>> crw_4446.htm
>> Essouira Medina.  Canon 10D with EF 35mm f2.0 - 1/125 @ f2.0  ISO 1600
>> http://www.spectare.com/gallery/Maroc%2003%20Gallery/source/ 
>> crw_4557.htm
>> My friend Martin Field lit by a single candle.  Canon 10D with EF 35mm
>> f2.0 -- 1/15 sec @ f2.0  ISO 1600
>> http://www.spectare.com/gallery/Maroc%2003%20Gallery/source/ 
>> crw_4572.htm
>> Digital is cool, no doubt.
>> --Jim
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl>
>> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 2:59 PM
>> Subject: [Leica] digital in low light
>>> Hi from what i read every where,a 10+megapixel camera will do better
>>> resolution wise then a slow film.
>>> Do any of you know of a link or publication   that explains at what  
>>> iso
>> the
>>> crossover is to 35mm,s film better performance.
>>> A  friend of mine who does pro sport showed me some low light stuff  
>>> made
>>> with his top Canon and it was allmost scary.
>>> Please tell me there is some use left in my Noctilux.
>>> Thanks
>>> simon jessurun
>>> p.s not that i will ever sell it or the M3 that was adjusted for it
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>
> --
> 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

In reply to: Message from Teresa299@aol.com (Re: [Leica] Fw: [Large Format] Beth Keiser Shoots B&W 4x5 ForCampaign Coverage)
Message from "animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl> ([Leica] digital in low light)
Message from "Jim Laurel" <jplaurel@nwlink.com> (Re: [Leica] digital in low light)
Message from sam <sam@osheaven.net> (Re: [Leica] digital in low light)