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

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (tedgrant at shaw.ca)]

Really you guides think about all this stuff way to much! Why not just go 
shoot new pictures???? Lot's more fun than burning brain cells? :-)

cheers,
Dr. ted :-)







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lawrence Zeitlin" <lrzeitlin at gmail.com>
To: "Leica LUG" <lug at leica-users.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:26 AM
Subject: [Leica] Re; Copy quality (was HCB negative)


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information