[Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 11/22/04 7:05 AM, "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> typed:

> Much as it pains me, Ted, I have to disagree on this one. If we were
> talking about silver prints v. quadtone inkjet prints, then, yes, the
> beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But the question of whether a file
> from a 10mgp digital camera can equal the same image, exposed the same
> way, shot the same way, on film, can be measured objectively in terms of
> dynamic range, "Micro detail," contrast, etc. etc.
> 
> B. D.
> 
I'm not sure who I disagree with more.
Ted, who thinks there is something convoluted and or unnecessary about
making a direct comparison to determine the quality of something.
I think we are taking digital over silver here. But also we could be talking
One lens over another
One format over another, Film, Developer and so on.

Or B.D..
Who counters this with these with the "dynamic range, "Micro detail,"
terminologies we are always coming across on the internet on discussion
groups and websites.. As a result of various scientific measuring.

If I was going to invest in a whole new technology.
Say the R1D1 for my Leica M glass.....

Sure I'd interested in hearing all the stuff from internet sources and
discussions on "dynamic range, "Micro detail," terminologies
to a certain extent.

But not all that much because from experience I know that what the numbers
seem to tell you can be all wrong when it gets down to looking at the print.
The result.
And this particular thing is a prime example of this kind of thing.
In this case the numbers seem to tell use that the resolution we are getting
in a digital print is pitiful compared to what we get with silver or
darkroom prints. Unacceptable by far. The numbers are so bad that we'd
expect to barely be able to stand to stare at the prints made with this
processes.
Yet the prints are gorgeous. And being widely excepted.

But Ted seems to think its baloney to put them side by side and see.

Me if someone told me they had two 13x19 prints of the same thing taken at
the same time.
One with film with a Leica M6.
Another with an Epson R1D1.
I'd travel for hours in my car to where ever it was to see it.

Because that would tell the story for me right then and there.
As to if I was going to get into this camera body and it's technology or
not. And if I'd not had experience or much exposure to inkjet if that could
be the bottleneck in the process or not.

And I don't necessarily buy it that this is an apples and oranges thing.
That if my name was Steve I'd like the inkjet but if my name was Harry I'd
like the silver print.

I think it could easily be the case where one was better and that the
superiority of one process over the other would be obvious to most people.

I think when you put things side by side in most cases the superiority of
one thing over anther becomes glaringly obvious.
As in an objective reality. And that's the only way you're going to know.
And this cuts through "the emperors new clothes" thing we talk ourselves
into or accept because of an overwhelming internet urban rumor.

This side by side would determine for me easily if I was going to spend the
not small bucks on an Epson digital body for my Leica glass.
And prove so more conclusively and easily than all the internet high tech
chatter in the world.

Just show me the results. That's easy enough.
I judge my gear by the results they make for me.
It's not the cameras and lenses.
Its the prints.

But to shoot a roll one day with one thing.
And a week later of something else with another thing.
And then say that this weeks thing is better than last weeks.
That's like passing on rumors to yourself.
Whispering baloney into your own ear.

All you're testing is the mood you are in that day.
Or you like shots of trees on sunny days better than you like rocks on
cloudy days.

Put them side by side.
Same rock. Same time. Same angle.

There won't need to be much discussion.

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/