[Leica] Re; Copy quality (was HCB negative)

[lrzeitlin at gmail.com (Lawrence Zeitlin)]

Mark writes:

"Larry the problem being that when you try making a matching print from that

35mm copy negative and put them side by side the difference is shocking. It

really looks like a copy of a copy."

- - - -

No argument. But you have significantly overstated the case. With analog
photography every step away from the original changes, but not necessarily
degrades, the final image quality. But remember how many steps take place
before you see a photo on the wall or printed in a book. There is the
original taking lens, of course, with all it's inherent aberrations. Then
there is the film with a catalog of compromises in color sensitivity, grain
size, emulsion thickness. Add the nature of the developing process which
influences contrast, gradation, and graininess. Unless you are shooting
negatives of the actual display size you must factor in the characteristics
of the enlarging lens and possibly the characteristics of the enlarging
light source. And of course all the variables of the printing process, paper
grade, surface treatment, and developer. For publication you must also add
the lenses and treatments necessary for platemaking and the characteristics
of the actual reproduction process itself. And for all I know, the phase of
the moon.


By a crude estimate, there are at least five, and possibly up to ten, sets
of variables that intervene between the clicking of the shutter and the
final image as displayed on a wall or in a book. In a sense, that's the
flexibility of traditional photography. Image quality can be altered at many
levels, using many techniques. One of the early criticisms of digital
photography was that it was inflexible compared to wet photography. It was
not until Photoshop and other image correction programs were developed that
serious photographers would even consider abandoning traditional techniques.
In digital photography, of course, there is there no degradation in
successive generations of images.


Despite the doctrinaire attitude of purists, creating the final product from
a copy negative is a well accepted technique. Few of us, except in a museum,
have ever seen the original prints made by photographic masters. Every
studio movie you see in a theater is a copy print. Many of the photos sold
by stock agencies are produced from copy negatives. All of the images seen
in printed publications, including the LUG Yearbook, involve copies.
Discussing the "quality" of images derived from copies is like discussing
virginity amongst whores. It is a non issue.


Larry Z