subject:"RE\: Leica digital back no longer vapourware"

Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing filter 
required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV filter. 
By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to perform 
their function.

Regards,
Bob...

"A picture is worth a thousand  words,
but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote:
AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like Ansel
Adams?
If not, what actually is an AA filter?
Anti-Aliasing
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

They were fugly too. Now, if the camera looked like Milla Jovovich, I'd 
probably be handling the camera more...

Regards,
Bob...

"A picture is worth a thousand  words,
but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Derby Chang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Still think its a fugly camera, though :)
I think I'm the ONLY person who thinks the R8/9 is NOT ugly.  As a matter 
of
fact, I'll go so far as to say I think it is a really neat looking camera.
Reminds me of the funky metallic big shouldered creatures in the movie 
"The
Fifth Element"

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather
convoluted workflow some of us go through at times.  We buy good quality
cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film
looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution and
detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners (sometimes
at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software to
correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of the
original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer (sometimes
purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a lab
somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or email -
where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look
like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph.  What's wrong with
this picture? 

Shel 

> [Original Message]
> From: Bob Blakely 

> Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing
filter 
> required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV
filter. 
> By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to
perform 
> their function.
>
> Regards,
> Bob...
> 
> "A picture is worth a thousand  words,
> but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
>
> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote:
> >
> >> AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like
Ansel
> >> Adams?
> >>
> >> If not, what actually is an AA filter?
> >
> > Anti-Aliasing
> >
> > http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another 
idiotic "film versus digital" debate?

Godfrey
On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather
convoluted workflow some of us go through at times.  We buy good 
quality
cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film
looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution 
and
detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners 
(sometimes
at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software 
to
correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of 
the
original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer 
(sometimes
purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a 
lab
somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or 
email -
where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look
like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph.  What's wrong with
this picture? 

Shel

[Original Message]
From: Bob Blakely

Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing
filter
required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV
filter.
By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to
perform
their function.
Regards,
Bob...

"A picture is worth a thousand  words,
but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote:
AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like
Ansel
Adams?
If not, what actually is an AA filter?
Anti-Aliasing
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-15 Thread Butch Black

On 14/5/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like Ansel
Adams?
If not, what actually is an AA filter?

Alcoholics Anonymous. A drunk designed that camera
Actually, it is a filter that prevents a person from taking a photo of an AA 
member at an AA meeting. They have a tradition asking members to maintain 
anonymity at the level of press, radio, TV, and film. I don't know if they 
have a tradition yet concerning digital capture. 

Butch

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

This has nothing to do with a film v digital debate.  My comment was in
response to Bob's and pointed out something I find rather odd which deals,
not with digital, but with film.  Lighten up, Godfrey ... ;-))  Doesn't it
seem odd to you that someone would take a perfectly good negative and
reduce its quality by running it through a scanner and photo editing
software when a perfectly fine print could be made directly from the
original negative?  Or are you so enmeshed in the digital workflow that the
concept of working directly with a negative is little more than a vague
memory?

Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to convert a neg
to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital
file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that can't or which
would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do
such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, and for the
life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances.

Shel 

> [Original Message]
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 5/15/2005 9:15:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
>
> Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another 
> idiotic "film versus digital" debate?
>
> Godfrey
>
>
> On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather
> > convoluted workflow some of us go through at times.  We buy good 
> > quality
> > cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film
> > looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution 
> > and
> > detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners 
> > (sometimes
> > at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software 
> > to
> > correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of 
> > the
> > original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer 
> > (sometimes
> > purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a 
> > lab
> > somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or 
> > email -
> > where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look
> > like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph.  What's wrong with
> > this picture? 
> >
> >
> > Shel
> >
> >
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: Bob Blakely
> >
> >> Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing
> > filter
> >> required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV
> > filter.
> >> By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to
> > perform
> >> their function.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Bob...
> >> 
> >> "A picture is worth a thousand  words,
> >> but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
> >>
> >> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>> On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like
> > Ansel
> >>>> Adams?
> >>>>
> >>>> If not, what actually is an AA filter?
> >>>
> >>> Anti-Aliasing
> >>>
> >>> http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm
> >
> >

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

I listen to conversation amongst Leica M owners with $20-40K worth of  
the best glass in the world arguing over whether Wal Mart or Costco is  
worth going to for their photofinishing because one is a dollar cheaper  
than the other ... And I can produce even a 4x6 print with a crappy,  
consumer film scanner and a cheap inkjet printer that will outshine  
either.

A "perfectly good negative" is just the 'biomass' from which a fine  
print can be produced. How you choose to produce that print is up to  
you. There's no such thing as "producing a print directly" from the  
negative. Whether you prefer to live in a world of noxious, smelly,  
chemistry and use a second camera to turn it into a print vs working in  
a hard edged world of silicon dioxide based machines and render it in  
numbers and ink, you are duplicating the data encapsulated on that bit  
of plastic/gelatin/silver halide onto paper and putting it through a  
variety of transformations. How well you achieve that is a measure of  
your skill.

I chose to invest in learning digital scanning and processing when I  
still operated a traditional B&W darkroom process. I found I obtained  
better results, even with the new process in its infancy, and it was  
much more practical for me than the darkroom, so I stopped doing  
darkroom work. I have no animosity towards darkroom work.

Godfrey
On May 15, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
This has nothing to do with a film v digital debate.  My comment was in
response to Bob's and pointed out something I find rather odd which  
deals,
not with digital, but with film.  Lighten up, Godfrey ... ;-))   
Doesn't it
seem odd to you that someone would take a perfectly good negative and
reduce its quality by running it through a scanner and photo editing
software when a perfectly fine print could be made directly from the
original negative?  Or are you so enmeshed in the digital workflow  
that the
concept of working directly with a negative is little more than a vague
memory?

Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to convert  
a neg
to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for  
digital
file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that can't or  
which
would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that  
just do
such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, and  
for the
life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances.

Shel

[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Date: 5/15/2005 9:15:42 AM
Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another
idiotic "film versus digital" debate?
Godfrey
On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather
convoluted workflow some of us go through at times.  We buy good
quality
cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest  
film
looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution
and
detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners
(sometimes
at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing  
software
to
correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of
the
original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer
(sometimes
purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to  
a
lab
somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or
email -
where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to  
look
like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph.  What's wrong  
with
this picture? 

Shel

[Original Message]
From: Bob Blakely

Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing
filter
required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV
filter.
By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to
perform
their function.
Regards,
Bob...

"A picture is worth a thousand  words,
but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote:
AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos  
like
Ansel
Adams?
If not, what actually is an AA filter?
Anti-Aliasing
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti- 
aliasing.htm

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather
convoluted workflow some of us go through at times.  We buy good quality
cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film
looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution and
detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners 
(sometimes
at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software to
correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of the
original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer (sometimes
purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a lab
somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or email -
where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look
like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph.  What's wrong with
this picture? 
At least one person other than me gets it.
William Robb

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" 
Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

I chose to invest in learning digital scanning and processing when I  
still operated a traditional B&W darkroom process. I found I obtained  
better results, even with the new process in its infancy, .
You weren't much good in the darkroom from the sounds of it.
William Robb

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-15 Thread Markus Maurer

Hi Shel
I would never scan *a perfectly negative* to the computer to edit or print
it, why should I do that?
A classic enlarged print from a negative is better and a lot cheaper IMHO
than a print on a good inkjet.
I scan negatives only to send photos via email or for PDML or to correct
errors and crop on the computer before
sending them to the lab for printing. The computer is a nice tool for
improving old or damaged negatives.
I will only print b/w at home now since I got so bad results from the labs.

And frankly, I enjoy taking photos with my old equipment and could do well
without all that computer work afterwards...



greetings
Markus


>>-Original Message-
>>From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:36 PM
>>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
>>
>>
>>This has nothing to do with a film v digital debate.  My comment was in
>>response to Bob's and pointed out something I find rather odd which deals,
>>not with digital, but with film.  Lighten up, Godfrey ... ;-))  Doesn't it
>>seem odd to you that someone would take a perfectly good negative and
>>reduce its quality by running it through a scanner and photo editing
>>software when a perfectly fine print could be made directly from the
>>original negative?  Or are you so enmeshed in the digital
>>workflow that the
>>concept of working directly with a negative is little more than a vague
>>memory?
>>
>>Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to
>>convert a neg
>>to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital
>>file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that
>>can't or which
>>would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do
>>such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course,
>>and for the
>>life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances.
>>
>>Shel
>>
>>
>>> [Original Message]
>>> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: 
>>> Date: 5/15/2005 9:15:42 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
>>>
>>> Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another
>>> idiotic "film versus digital" debate?
>>>
>>> Godfrey
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>>>
>>> > A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather
>>> > convoluted workflow some of us go through at times.  We buy good
>>> > quality
>>> > cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and
>>retest film
>>> > looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution
>>> > and
>>> > detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners
>>> > (sometimes
>>> > at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing
>>software
>>> > to
>>> > correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of
>>> > the
>>> > original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer
>>> > (sometimes
>>> > purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or
>>send it to a
>>> > lab
>>> > somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or
>>> > email -
>>> > where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look
>>> > like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph.  What's
>>wrong with
>>> > this picture? 
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Shel
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> [Original Message]
>>> >> From: Bob Blakely
>>> >
>>> >> Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing
>>> > filter
>>> >> required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV
>>> > filter.
>>> >> By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to
>>> > perform
>>> >> their function.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >> Bob...
>>> >> 
>>> >> "A picture is worth a thousand  words,
>>> >> but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
>>> >>
>>> >> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >>
>>> >>> On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like
>>> > Ansel
>>> >>>> Adams?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> If not, what actually is an AA filter?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Anti-Aliasing
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Interspersed

> [Original Message]
> From: Markus Maurer 

> I would never scan *a perfectly negative* to the computer to edit or print
> it, why should I do that?

Exactly - yet it'd done with greater and greater frequency.

> A classic enlarged print from a negative is better and a lot cheaper IMHO
> than a print on a good inkjet.

I won't argue that point.

> I scan negatives only to send photos via email or for PDML or to correct
> errors and crop on the computer before
> sending them to the lab for printing. The computer is a nice tool for
> improving old or damaged negatives.

I enjoy scanning negs as it allows me a simple way to make "proof prints"
and play with cropping and such before deciding what to do in the way of a
final print and without having to set up the darkroom just to quickly check
an idea or concept  And it's a good way to get some feedback from other
photogs.

> I will only print b/w at home now since I got so bad results from the
labs.

> And frankly, I enjoy taking photos with my old equipment and could do well
> without all that computer work afterwards...

Yes, old gear is nice to use, but then, so is new gear.  For me, the
simplicity of old cameras allows an easier, less distracting way to shoot. 
In some ways using older cameras can be more like using a P&S camera than
some P&S cameras are 

>-Original Message-
> >>From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:36 PM
> >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >>Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
> >>
> >>
> >>This has nothing to do with a film v digital debate.  My comment was in
> >>response to Bob's and pointed out something I find rather odd which
deals,
> >>not with digital, but with film.  Lighten up, Godfrey ... ;-))  Doesn't
it
> >>seem odd to you that someone would take a perfectly good negative and
> >>reduce its quality by running it through a scanner and photo editing
> >>software when a perfectly fine print could be made directly from the
> >>original negative?  Or are you so enmeshed in the digital
> >>workflow that the
> >>concept of working directly with a negative is little more than a vague
> >>memory?
> >>
> >>Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to
> >>convert a neg
> >>to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for
digital
> >>file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that
> >>can't or which
> >>would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just
do
> >>such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course,
> >>and for the
> >>life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances.
> >>
> >>Shel
> >>
> >>
> >>> [Original Message]
> >>> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> To: 
> >>> Date: 5/15/2005 9:15:42 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
> >>>
> >>> Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another
> >>> idiotic "film versus digital" debate?
> >>>
> >>> Godfrey
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather
> >>> > convoluted workflow some of us go through at times.  We buy good
> >>> > quality
> >>> > cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and
> >>retest film
> >>> > looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution
> >>> > and
> >>> > detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners
> >>> > (sometimes
> >>> > at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing
> >>software
> >>> > to
> >>> > correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more
of
> >>> > the
> >>> > original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer
> >>> > (sometimes
> >>> > purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or
> >>send it to a
> >>> > lab
> >>> > somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or
> >>> > email -
> >>> > where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to
look
> >>> > like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern phot

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

God I hope so! It's so much fun! 

Regards,
Bob...

"A picture is worth a thousand  words,
but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another 
idiotic "film versus digital" debate?

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Thank you, Mr. Robb.
I only won several awards and sold B&W photos for a living for a decade 
or two. I guess I don't know anywhere near as much as you do about it.

Godfrey
On May 15, 2005, at 10:57 AM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: 
Leica digital back no longer vapourware


I chose to invest in learning digital scanning and processing when I  
still operated a traditional B&W darkroom process. I found I obtained 
 better results, even with the new process in its infancy, .
You weren't much good in the darkroom from the sounds of it.
William Robb

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-15 Thread Herb Chong

as far as i am concerned, both Shel and Bill like aspects of film image 
capture that i consider to be all the drawbacks and flaws of film with no 
advantages that i care about.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Thank you, Mr. Robb.
I only won several awards and sold B&W photos for a living for a decade or 
two. I guess I don't know anywhere near as much as you do about it.

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" 
Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Thank you, Mr. Robb.
I only won several awards and sold B&W photos for a living for a decade 
or two. I guess I don't know anywhere near as much as you do about it.

That could be a correct assessment.
William Robb

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-15 Thread pnstenquist

Shel wrote:
> 
> Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to convert a neg
> to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital
> file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that can't or which
> would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do
> such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, and for the
> life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances.

The answer is simple: Most lab techs can't hit their ass with both hands. 
Halfway decent optical color prints are almost impossible to find. And even if 
you find a good tech, color, contrast, saturation, and all the other variables 
are then his decision, not yours. I suffered along with labs for a quarter of a 
century. Never again. 
Paul


> This has nothing to do with a film v digital debate.  My comment was in
> response to Bob's and pointed out something I find rather odd which deals,
> not with digital, but with film.  Lighten up, Godfrey ... ;-))  Doesn't it
> seem odd to you that someone would take a perfectly good negative and
> reduce its quality by running it through a scanner and photo editing
> software when a perfectly fine print could be made directly from the
> original negative?  Or are you so enmeshed in the digital workflow that the
> concept of working directly with a negative is little more than a vague
> memory?
> 
> Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to convert a neg
> to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital
> file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that can't or which
> would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do
> such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, and for the
> life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances.
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Date: 5/15/2005 9:15:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
> >
> > Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another 
> > idiotic "film versus digital" debate?
> >
> > Godfrey
> >
> >
> > On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> >
> > > A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather
> > > convoluted workflow some of us go through at times.  We buy good 
> > > quality
> > > cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film
> > > looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution 
> > > and
> > > detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners 
> > > (sometimes
> > > at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software 
> > > to
> > > correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of 
> > > the
> > > original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer 
> > > (sometimes
> > > purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a 
> > > lab
> > > somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or 
> > > email -
> > > where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look
> > > like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph.  What's wrong with
> > > this picture? 
> > >
> > >
> > > Shel
> > >
> > >
> > >> [Original Message]
> > >> From: Bob Blakely
> > >
> > >> Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing
> > > filter
> > >> required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV
> > > filter.
> > >> By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to
> > > perform
> > >> their function.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Bob...
> > >> 
> > >> "A picture is worth a thousand  words,
> > >> but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
> > >>
> > >> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>
> > >>> On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like
> > > Ansel
> > >>>> Adams?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If not, what actually is an AA filter?
> > >>>
> > >>> Anti-Aliasing
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm
> > >
> > >
> 
>

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-15 Thread Eric Featherstone

To pick up on one point of Shel's and Markus's comments...
[Original Message]
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
> From: Markus Maurer
> And frankly, I enjoy taking photos with my old equipment and could do well
> without all that computer work afterwards...
Yes, old gear is nice to use, but then, so is new gear.  For me, the
simplicity of old cameras allows an easier, less distracting way to shoot.
In some ways using older cameras can be more like using a P&S camera than
some P&S cameras are 
That struck a chord with me. I _like_ the simplicity of the K1000 and MX 
(well particularly the K1000 out of those two) compared to the ME-Super (or 
my digital P&S). I find the exposure compensation, manual push buttons and 
the rotary switch around the shutter a little too fussy. Mind you I've been 
using the K1000 so long now most anything will seem a bit cluttered with 
buttons I guess ;-)

Eric.

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

On 15 May 2005 at 8:38, Bob Blakely wrote:

> Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing filter
> required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV filter. By
> their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to perform their
> function.

Film grain is just like natural dither, it affects the captured image to more 
or less degree depending upon the film type and format or film area. AA filters 
in digital systems should be matched precisely to the sensor in order to 
eliminate aliasing distortions and to provide a natural fall off of resolution. 
AA filters don't introduce distortion they should eliminate it by band limiting 
resolution, they don't introduce artifacts like the essentially random nature 
of grain in film. From the perspective of distortion and accuracy in image 
recording if resolution was equal I'm sure I'd prefer a digital system over 
analogue film in 9 out of 10 scenarios.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

On 15 May 2005 at 8:59, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather
> convoluted workflow some of us go through at times.  We buy good quality
> cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film
> looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution and
> detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners (sometimes at
> rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software to correct
> and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of the original
> negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer (sometimes purchased 
> with
> low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a lab somewhere that'll
> make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or email - where the techs have 
> no
> idea what the final result is supposed to look like, and, bada-bing, we have 
> the
> modern photograph.  What's wrong with this picture? 

I guess you should try sending a colour calibrated high res image on a CD/DVD 
to a lab who has staff that don't adjust files prior to printing and have 
calibrated profiled printers. I don't care what they think my image should look 
like so long as I get it back like it looked on my screen. This I could never 
assure in any analogue process, hell I couldn't even trust pro-labs to crop my 
images according to instructions, they thought they knew best. A correctly 
profiled scanner will deliver all the contrast and colour that the film 
provides within the bounds of the system. 

What's wrong with the picture you pose is that your digital equipment and work-
flow seems to be a weak-point in the chain and you are apparently sending work 
to labs that still do what they want.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-15 Thread Herb Chong

which, as far as i am concerned, is beyond what most people are capable of 
using 35mm film. the only lens film combination i have ever used that i was 
sure contained information beyond what i could scan on my Nikon 4000ED is 
Velvia and my FA 50/2.8 Macro. using film or lenses with less resolution 
didn't put any more detail on the film that i could scan. as far as i am 
concerned, for 35mm work, drum scanners are overrated and overpriced. the 
commercial photographers i am friends with think the same. at one time, they 
did have a significant advantage, but that day has long passed.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware


A correctly
profiled scanner will deliver all the contrast and colour that the film
provides within the bounds of the system.

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

My labs give me exactly what I want.  My contention is that it seems just
plain stupid in many cases to take a perfectly good negative, manipulate
the hell out of it, put it through a number of processes that reduce or
alter its qualities, and then fix the alterations caused by digitizing, in
order to make a print that could have been made from the original negative.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Rob Studdert 

> What's wrong with the picture you pose is that your digital equipment and
work-
> flow seems to be a weak-point in the chain and you are apparently sending
work 
> to labs that still do what they want.

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

What the heck does that mean?  That's a pretty strongly qualified
statement, Rob.  I have NEVER seen a scanner that didn't, in some way,
reduce the quality of the original negative.  If it didn't, why would there
be a need to sharpen the results, or to adjust color to make the scan look
like the slide or the print, or adjust curves.  There is more to making a
photograph than just contrast and color.  Even if the results through all
the manipulation are excellent, it just seems odd to go through what seems
like a series of destructive and reconstructive steps only to end up back
where you started.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Rob Studdert 

>  A correctly 
> profiled scanner will deliver all the contrast and colour that the film 
> provides within the bounds of the system.

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

On 15 May 2005 at 16:18, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> My labs give me exactly what I want.  My contention is that it seems just
> plain stupid in many cases to take a perfectly good negative, manipulate
> the hell out of it, put it through a number of processes that reduce or
> alter its qualities, and then fix the alterations caused by digitizing, in
> order to make a print that could have been made from the original negative.

So you think that printing a neg to paper using an enlarger doesn't do just 
that? The fact is that the losses and distortions imparted on an electronic 
image file in a well calibrated and accommodating editing environment (such as 
a 16bit wide gamut work-space) are so negligible as to be insignificant in 
print. Just like the inherent distortion in a good enlarging lens. I don't know 
why you think the analogue system has inherent superiority, it's just longer 
established and better understood by the majority, that's all.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

On 15 May 2005 at 16:24, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> What the heck does that mean?  That's a pretty strongly qualified
> statement, Rob.  I have NEVER seen a scanner that didn't, in some way,
> reduce the quality of the original negative.  If it didn't, why would there 
> be a
> need to sharpen the results, or to adjust color to make the scan look like the
> slide or the print, or adjust curves.  There is more to making a photograph 
> than
> just contrast and color.  Even if the results through all the manipulation are
> excellent, it just seems odd to go through what seems like a series of
> destructive and reconstructive steps only to end up back where you started.

A 16bit per/colour channel scanner combined with a work-space with a 16bit wide 
gamut work-space should be able to record and manipulate all the data in well 
processed film. How the recorded data is represented on screen/print relative 
to actual visual colour and contrast depends heavily upon the accurate 
calibration of the scanner. You shouldn't need to adjust colour, curves or 
contrast on a calibrated system other than to compensate for exposure and 
uncompensated lighting variations and film batch variations (assuming that you 
don't calibrate your system for every film as should be done by any pedant).

As I mentioned in other words before the degree of destruction of a digital 
image depends a lot on the working environment you choose. It's much like 
analogue imaging systems, use the wrong developer and you'll end up with the 
correct film density but you may loose shadow detail etc. IOW you have to know 
what you are doing before you can blame the process or equipment.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

A 16bit per/colour channel scanner combined with a work-space with a 16bit 
wide
gamut work-space should be able to record and manipulate all the data in 
well
processed film. How the recorded data is represented on screen/print 
relative
to actual visual colour and contrast depends heavily upon the accurate
calibration of the scanner.
Sadly, it also depends on 8 bit printer outputs, or have printers gone 16 
bit without me noticing?

William Robb

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-15 Thread Markus Maurer

Hi Eric
I'm tempted by an auction for a MX ending in a few days. I would use it as
second body instead of the P30 with the 24mm
wide angle lens.
I never had a MX but started with the ME Super as my first SLR
back in 1981.  I heard a lot of good things about the MX and have read about
the limitations on BOZ too.
But, can you tell me in a few words why  you prefer the K1000 over the MX?

Thanks in advance
Markus



>>From: Eric Featherstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 12:14 AM
>>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>
>>That struck a chord with me. I _like_ the simplicity of the K1000 and MX
>>(well particularly the K1000 out of those two) compared to the
>>ME-Super (or

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

On 15 May 2005 at 17:54, William Robb wrote:

> Sadly, it also depends on 8 bit printer outputs, or have printers gone 16 
> bit without me noticing?

Yes I think virtually all printers currently are 8 bits only, the process 
really wouldn't benefit from more data per colour channel using current ink 
print output technologies though I suspect that some cont-tone digital printers 
might benefit. Assuming that an image has been well captured/scanned and 
processed the black and white points will translate directly from 16 bit to 8 
bits without distortion. What the bit depth transformation does is make the 
transitional steps between adjacent brightness levels on each colour channel 
more abrupt by dividing the range into fewer steps. 

The key to producing quality 8bit files for electronic display or print is to 
convert your file to 8bits/cc as the very last process in the work-flow. The 
physical indication of insufficient source image data depth is banding in a 
print. Therefore if a print from an 8bit file displays no banding then there 
would likely be limited benefit feeding the printer with greater data depth. 

As printer ink gamuts, media and direct digital to paper print improves 
8bits/cc may become a limition, but now I suspect it's not. (And just to 
qualify that previous statement before I get jumped on, I'm implying that print 
technology may become much better than the current analogue processes, I'm not 
suggesting that current digital print technology is inferior to analogue 
processes).

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-15 Thread Markus Maurer

Hi Shel
would you please do me a favor and beg your labs on your knees to open a
branch here in Switzerland near Zurich?

Even when I explicitly state that I do not want any corrections or crops on
my photos and even when
the online service seems to guaranty that,
I still **never** receive what I ordered nowadays :-(
They can not even tell me the *exact dimensions*  (only only estimates on
the website) of
the enlargement, so 30 centimeters length could be as well 27 centimeters on
the print!

That's *one* of the rare reasons for me  making sense scanning a perfect
negative and print it at home on a good inkjet.

greetings
Markus



>>> My labs give me exactly what I want.

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-15 Thread Herb Chong

they didn't. they went more resolution instead and that does as good a job 
as more bits for less cost.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Sadly, it also depends on 8 bit printer outputs, or have printers gone 16 
bit without me noticing?

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

- Original Message - 
From: "Markus Maurer"
Subject: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Even when I explicitly state that I do not want any corrections or crops 
on
my photos and even when
the online service seems to guaranty that,
I still **never** receive what I ordered nowadays :-(
They can not even tell me the *exact dimensions*  (only only estimates on
the website) of
the enlargement, so 30 centimeters length could be as well 27 centimeters 
on
the print!
If you are shooting digital, make sure you have a calibration on your system 
that matches the calibration on the lab. Make sure your files are tagged for 
the same DPI as the lab, and then size the file to what you want.
Make sure the colour space you send to the lab is one they recognize.

If you are shooting film, remember that you are working with a human being, 
not a faceless automaton.
Don't be condescending to the lab tech, they deal with fools all day long. A 
bombastic fool is worse than the regular sort.
I spend so much of my time fixing peoples screw ups that I tend to do it 
automatically. This means that I am second guessing the photographer out of 
habit. If I guess wrong, I appreciate being thanked for trying but., 
rather than being told off by some jerk that figures his picture is 
something special (most of em are just another bride with a scared chicken 
expression or a baby with Chef Boy R Dee on his face, and your pretty sunset 
is something I have seen a dozen times before, probably done better 11 of 
those times.

In all cases, deal with real people at the lab. The online web service that 
they foisted on me gives me the willies.

And not the regular kind, either.
William Robb

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Average point and shoot cameras (lens ratings of very good, not excellent or 
outstanding as rated by Popular Photography magazine) manufactured today 
will be able to achieve around 50 line pairs / mm of resolution, that is, in 
each millimeter on a 35mm film frame, it can clearly resolve 50 black lines 
between 50 white lines distinctly. Professional 35mm cameras coupled with 
the best 35mm fixed length lenses and film (such as the superb Fuji Provia 
100F slide or Kodak Tech Pan B&W film), can easily record 100+ lp/mm of 
resolution in optimal studio conditions.

100 lppmm * 36mm = 3600 lpp35mm frame long side. Now, Niquest says that we 
must sample at more than twice the information rate to reconstruct the 
highest frequency and currently (in communications) this generally means a 
sampling rate of about 2.5 or so times this highest frequency when using 
VERY good low pass filters. This implies about 9000 tri-color pixels are 
required along the 36mm side. Likewise, 6000 tri-color pixels are required 
to sample the 24mm side. The total is then 9000 x 6000 = 54,000,000 pixels 
or 54 megapixels. Now this is assuming tri-color pixels. For different 
resolution equivalents, we have the following:

 40 lppmm =   8.6 mp =   34.6 mb raw @ 32 bits per pixel
 50= 13.5 mp =   54.0 mb raw @ 32 bits per pixel
 60= 19.4 mp =   77.8 mb raw @ 32 bits per pixel
 70= 26.5 mp = 105.8 mb raw @ 32 bits per pixel
 80= 34.6 mp = 138.2 mb raw @ 32 bits per pixel
 90= 43.7 mp = 175.0 mb raw @ 32 bits per pixel
100= 54.0 mp = 216.0 mb raw @ 32 bits per pixel
110= 65.3 mp = 261.4 mb raw @ 32 bits per pixel
Note: with a little thought, you will realize that the number of required 
number of pixels remains constant regardless of the sensor size for the same 
quality photograph.

My conclusions:
For most use 40 lppmm is entirely suitable.
If you want the very best (equal to using say, Provia 100F or Tech Pan film 
or better, the very best lenses, solid tripod, controlled lighting and 
critical focusing) you still need film and you will need it for a long time.

Average consumers don't care because they don't blow their photos up to 3x5 
feet, don't ever crop and are used to accepting the quality of a $4 throw 
away one shot p&s camera. Digital processing is within the consumers' 
capabilities and gives them a feeling of "control". Many pro's, especially 
PJs and wedding photogs will drop film also and go to digital to save money 
and time. The money is in the volume and therefore in the average consumer. 
Film outlets and film choices will dwindle. We'll all be forced to digital 
for most work because of this. Our shiny new digital cameras will have a 
tech life of about three years just like computers. Eventually, after 10 
years, what was the very best digital camera when it was purchased will 
command a price of $25 on ebay, about the price of a Russian Leica copy.

Bonus: for some years to come, your digital cameras will not require the 
very best lenses to work to the best of their capabilities.

Drawback: You will need a newer, more capable computer and larger 
communications bandwidth every three to six years.
Just my opinion...

Regards,
Bob...

"A picture is worth a thousand  words,
but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

On 15 May 2005 at 8:38, Bob Blakely wrote:
Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing 
filter
required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV 
filter. By
their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to perform 
their
function.
Film grain is just like natural dither, it affects the captured image to 
more
or less degree depending upon the film type and format or film area. AA 
filters
in digital systems should be matched precisely to the sensor in order to
eliminate aliasing distortions and to provide a natural fall off of 
resolution.
AA filters don't introduce distortion they should eliminate it by band 
limiting
resolution, they don't introduce artifacts like the essentially random 
nature
of grain in film. From the perspective of distortion and accuracy in image
recording if resolution was equal I'm sure I'd prefer a digital system 
over
analogue film in 9 out of 10 scenarios.

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Whole lotta drivel in this thread by the film luddites.
Godfrey

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

On 15 May 2005 at 20:00, Bob Blakely wrote:

> My conclusions:
> 
> For most use 40 lppmm is entirely suitable.
> 
> If you want the very best (equal to using say, Provia 100F or Tech Pan film or
> better, the very best lenses, solid tripod, controlled lighting and critical
> focusing) you still need film and you will need it for a long time.
> 
> Average consumers don't care because they don't blow their photos up to 3x5
> feet, don't ever crop and are used to accepting the quality of a $4 throw away
> one shot p&s camera. Digital processing is within the consumers' capabilities
> and gives them a feeling of "control". Many pro's, especially PJs and wedding
> photogs will drop film also and go to digital to save money and time. The 
> money
> is in the volume and therefore in the average consumer. Film outlets and film
> choices will dwindle. We'll all be forced to digital for most work because of
> this. Our shiny new digital cameras will have a tech life of about three years
> just like computers. Eventually, after 10 years, what was the very best 
> digital
> camera when it was purchased will command a price of $25 on ebay, about the
> price of a Russian Leica copy.
> 
> Bonus: for some years to come, your digital cameras will not require the 
> very best lenses to work to the best of their capabilities.
> 
> Drawback: You will need a newer, more capable computer and larger 
> communications bandwidth every three to six years.
> Just my opinion...

I guess I'll have to keep my Mamiya 7 kit and LS-8000 MF scanner for a few more 
years yet. :-)

I constructed my computer system to cope with my scanner needs before I bought 
my DSLR camera, historically my work-station computers have 5-7 year life-span 
and servers more. Digital camera files are minuscule in size compared to the 
files generated by MF film scans so even 22MP DSLR files would remain 
manageable using my current system for its life. Post processing time whilst 
not instant definitely isn't reducing my productivity using my current system, 
any additional processing time due to larger RAW files sizes would be 
tolerable.

I don't subscribe to this theory of ever increasingly capable cameras and the 
need to upgrade. Like computers DSLR technology will likely plateau within the 
next five years. There is little point even considering more than about 16MP in 
a 35mm frame camera, there would be little need or benefit for 99.99% of 
photographers but for pose factor. At the 16MP point prints up to 16x20" will 
be about as good as they get and wall sized prints would be better than using 
35mm film for the same job (and that's just a demonstrable fact, the film res 
numbers look great in text but don't work in practice, been there), I know 
they'll have no soul but I'm learning to deal with that.

I feel for the photographers that have a real attachment for film but really I 
only care about the best most cost effective methods of getting my images into 
print and digital processes have solved a lot of my problems and made me a lot 
less angry :-) Just my current perspective of the situation.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Paul Stenquist

Well said, Rob. I process 600 megabyte scans of 4x5 film on my current 
computer system without a problem, and my system is already three years 
beyond state of the art for a Mac platform. I figure to get at least 
another four years out of it. I find the film math quite amusing, 
although I once was convinced that it was true. All it took was some 
real world experience to show how poorly that math translates to the 
real world of making photographs.
Paul
On May 16, 2005, at 12:23 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:

On 15 May 2005 at 20:00, Bob Blakely wrote:
My conclusions:
For most use 40 lppmm is entirely suitable.
If you want the very best (equal to using say, Provia 100F or Tech 
Pan film or
better, the very best lenses, solid tripod, controlled lighting and 
critical
focusing) you still need film and you will need it for a long time.

Average consumers don't care because they don't blow their photos up 
to 3x5
feet, don't ever crop and are used to accepting the quality of a $4 
throw away
one shot p&s camera. Digital processing is within the consumers' 
capabilities
and gives them a feeling of "control". Many pro's, especially PJs and 
wedding
photogs will drop film also and go to digital to save money and time. 
The money
is in the volume and therefore in the average consumer. Film outlets 
and film
choices will dwindle. We'll all be forced to digital for most work 
because of
this. Our shiny new digital cameras will have a tech life of about 
three years
just like computers. Eventually, after 10 years, what was the very 
best digital
camera when it was purchased will command a price of $25 on ebay, 
about the
price of a Russian Leica copy.

Bonus: for some years to come, your digital cameras will not require 
the
very best lenses to work to the best of their capabilities.

Drawback: You will need a newer, more capable computer and larger
communications bandwidth every three to six years.
Just my opinion...
I guess I'll have to keep my Mamiya 7 kit and LS-8000 MF scanner for a 
few more
years yet. :-)

I constructed my computer system to cope with my scanner needs before 
I bought
my DSLR camera, historically my work-station computers have 5-7 year 
life-span
and servers more. Digital camera files are minuscule in size compared 
to the
files generated by MF film scans so even 22MP DSLR files would remain
manageable using my current system for its life. Post processing time 
whilst
not instant definitely isn't reducing my productivity using my current 
system,
any additional processing time due to larger RAW files sizes would be
tolerable.

I don't subscribe to this theory of ever increasingly capable cameras 
and the
need to upgrade. Like computers DSLR technology will likely plateau 
within the
next five years. There is little point even considering more than 
about 16MP in
a 35mm frame camera, there would be little need or benefit for 99.99% 
of
photographers but for pose factor. At the 16MP point prints up to 
16x20" will
be about as good as they get and wall sized prints would be better 
than using
35mm film for the same job (and that's just a demonstrable fact, the 
film res
numbers look great in text but don't work in practice, been there), I 
know
they'll have no soul but I'm learning to deal with that.

I feel for the photographers that have a real attachment for film but 
really I
only care about the best most cost effective methods of getting my 
images into
print and digital processes have solved a lot of my problems and made 
me a lot
less angry :-) Just my current perspective of the situation.

Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread frank theriault

On 5/15/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whole lotta drivel in this thread by the film luddites.
> 

Right.

Name calling will certainly quiet things down...

-frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread William Robb

- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stenquist" 
Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Well said, Rob. I process 600 megabyte scans of 4x5 film on my current 
computer system without a problem, and my system is already three years 
beyond state of the art for a Mac platform. I figure to get at least 
another four years out of it. I find the film math quite amusing, 
although I once was convinced that it was true. All it took was some 
real world experience to show how poorly that math translates to the 
real world of making photographs.
You caught on to the cheap plastic toy in a hurry, for sure.
William Robb

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread P. J. Alling

It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers 
trust of being a Luddite
for not having a cell phone.  I on the other hand value privacy, which 
is the best reason not to have
such a device, if I had one I'd never be alone, (which for some people 
must be the next thing to being dead).

frank theriault wrote:
On 5/15/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

Whole lotta drivel in this thread by the film luddites.
   

Right.
Name calling will certainly quiet things down...
-frank
 


--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread frank theriault

On 5/16/05, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers
> trust of being a Luddite
> for not having a cell phone.  I on the other hand value privacy, which
> is the best reason not to have
> such a device, if I had one I'd never be alone, (which for some people
> must be the next thing to being dead).

The term Luddite has been misused quite a bit.  I don't think that it
should apply to someone who simply chooses not to use a newer
technology.

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

On May 16, 2005, at 6:19 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers 
trust of being a Luddite
for not having a cell phone.  I on the other hand value privacy, which 
is the best reason not to have such a device, if I had one I'd never 
be alone, (which for some people must be the next thing to being 
dead).
There is an "On/Off" switch provided on communications devices. This 
permits privacy and silence when desired, as well as communications 
when desired. I only turn mine on when I want to be available for 
contact.

I think the term Luddite is quite applicable:
Luddite
n 1: any opponent of technological progress
   2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed 
labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment

Godfrey

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Exactly! You know, I couldn't remember exactly how i worded my initial critique 
of the *istD. Thanks for the refresher .


> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Paul Stenquist" 
> Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
> 
> 
> > Well said, Rob. I process 600 megabyte scans of 4x5 film on my current 
> > computer system without a problem, and my system is already three years 
> > beyond state of the art for a Mac platform. I figure to get at least 
> > another four years out of it. I find the film math quite amusing, 
> > although I once was convinced that it was true. All it took was some 
> > real world experience to show how poorly that math translates to the 
> > real world of making photographs.
> 
> You caught on to the cheap plastic toy in a hurry, for sure.
> 
> William Robb
>

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Frank wrote:
> 
> The term Luddite has been misused quite a bit.  I don't think that it
> should apply to someone who simply chooses not to use a newer
> technology.

However, aside from the historical context, that's pretty much what "luddite" 
means -- someone who oppposes technical change. And from the laments I've seen 
over the passing of film, the feelings of many go well beyond "choice." Many 
film shooters obviously wish that digital had never happened. By definititon, 
they're "luddites." Not bad people, just luddites. 
Paul

> On 5/16/05, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers
> > trust of being a Luddite
> > for not having a cell phone.  I on the other hand value privacy, which
> > is the best reason not to have
> > such a device, if I had one I'd never be alone, (which for some people
> > must be the next thing to being dead).
> 
> The term Luddite has been misused quite a bit.  I don't think that it
> should apply to someone who simply chooses not to use a newer
> technology.
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> 
> 
> -- 
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson
>

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Graywolf

In the far distant past (sixties) you could get connected to the tech who 
actually printed your photos. After a while he knew what your style was and 
could produce pretty much what you would have produced. This was how pro-labs 
operated back then.
Then they put a pretty airhead at the front desk, so not to waste the tech's 
time talking to customers. Then they discovered that since the tech didn't have 
to follow instructions they could replace him with another airhead. That is 
when it all went to hell.
Now here is the $64 question. Why go digital if you are not going to do it 
yourself?
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message ----- From: "Markus Maurer"
Subject: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Even when I explicitly state that I do not want any corrections or 
crops on
my photos and even when
the online service seems to guaranty that,
I still **never** receive what I ordered nowadays :-(
They can not even tell me the *exact dimensions*  (only only estimates on
the website) of
the enlargement, so 30 centimeters length could be as well 27 
centimeters on
the print!

If you are shooting digital, make sure you have a calibration on your 
system that matches the calibration on the lab. Make sure your files are 
tagged for the same DPI as the lab, and then size the file to what you 
want.
Make sure the colour space you send to the lab is one they recognize.

If you are shooting film, remember that you are working with a human 
being, not a faceless automaton.
Don't be condescending to the lab tech, they deal with fools all day 
long. A bombastic fool is worse than the regular sort.
I spend so much of my time fixing peoples screw ups that I tend to do it 
automatically. This means that I am second guessing the photographer out 
of habit. If I guess wrong, I appreciate being thanked for trying 
but., rather than being told off by some jerk that figures his 
picture is something special (most of em are just another bride with a 
scared chicken expression or a baby with Chef Boy R Dee on his face, and 
your pretty sunset is something I have seen a dozen times before, 
probably done better 11 of those times.

In all cases, deal with real people at the lab. The online web service 
that they foisted on me gives me the willies.

And not the regular kind, either.
William Robb


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.11 - Release Date: 5/16/2005

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Paul,

To not use a technology does not necessarily mean one is opposed to it.  To
question it's value, or aspects of its use, or how it's used,  or comparing
some or all of it unfavorably to another - perhaps older - technology, does
not mean that there's an opposition to it. 

I enjoy using and driving my cars, yet there are times when it's not the
best way to get around, and the older technology, such as street cars or
cable cars in San Francisco is a better - or at least more realistic -
choice.  Were I to live in SF, it's possible that I'd not even own a car,
but that doesn't mean I'd be opposed to them.

Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or
dismisses older technology as useless or worthless?

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
> > The term Luddite has been misused quite a bit.  I don't think that it
> > should apply to someone who simply chooses not to use a newer
> > technology.
>
> However, aside from the historical context, that's pretty much what
"luddite" means -- someone who oppposes technical change. And from the
laments I've seen over the passing of film, the feelings of many go well
beyond "choice." Many film shooters obviously wish that digital had never
happened. By definititon, they're "luddites." Not bad people, just
luddites.

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

So, if one *questions the value of certain techniques or choices, does it
them a Luddite? 

Y'know Godfrey, your on line personality is quite different from that of
the man I met at the PDML get together. You come across here as very
abrasive and dogmatic, leaving little room for the opinions of others. It's
really a shame because you probably have a lot to contribute. However, your
demeanor is a real turn off. You present yourself as a digital evangelist,
a true believer, the keeper of the flame. Your way is the right way, others
are idiots or drivel drooling Luddites.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi 

> I think the term Luddite is quite applicable:
>
> Luddite
> n 1: any opponent of technological progress
> 2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed 
> labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Hi,

While the ME-S is something of a ubiquitous workhorse, of all the Pentax
cameras I've used, it's probably the least favored, yet there's a time when
it seems just right.  Those are the times when I want a small automatic
camera, where one might reach for a P&S like one of the IQ Zooms.

It's a poor choice for B&W where I want to choose my exposures carefully,
likewise for slide film, but it's quite nice for color neg when making
snapshots and I can let the film latitude and the lab figure out what to do
with the subtleties of exposure.  The little buttons make adjustments a
real PITA.

John Francis loaned me a Super Program which I've yet to try.  From the
kudos it's received here, it may be a nice alternative to the ME-S.

I definitely prefer the K bodies to the ME-S, and from the way they feel,
sometimes prefering them to the MX.  Their heft and solid metal
construction are great, and lend, and they are so perfectly matched to the
size and weight of the K lenses.  True, they are a bit heavier and bulkier
than the newer cameras, but generally that's not an issue.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Eric Featherstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 5/15/2005 3:15:21 PM
> Subject: RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
>
> To pick up on one point of Shel's and Markus's comments...
>
> [Original Message]
> >From: "Shel Belinkoff"
> > > From: Markus Maurer
> >
> > > And frankly, I enjoy taking photos with my old equipment and could do
well
> > > without all that computer work afterwards...
> >
> >Yes, old gear is nice to use, but then, so is new gear.  For me, the
> >simplicity of old cameras allows an easier, less distracting way to
shoot.
> >In some ways using older cameras can be more like using a P&S camera than
> >some P&S cameras are 
>
> That struck a chord with me. I _like_ the simplicity of the K1000 and MX 
> (well particularly the K1000 out of those two) compared to the ME-Super
(or 
> my digital P&S). I find the exposure compensation, manual push buttons
and 
> the rotary switch around the shutter a little too fussy. Mind you I've
been 
> using the K1000 so long now most anything will seem a bit cluttered with 
> buttons I guess ;-)
>
> Eric.
>
>
>

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Graywolf asked:
> 
> Now here is the $64 question. Why go digital if you are not going to do it 
> yourself?
> 
 
For me, "doing it myself" was one of the most important considerations in my 
decision to go digital. However, that being said, if you dial into a digital 
lab with matched profiles and color space, you should be able to generate good 
prints. There's much more of a direct photographer/lab link than is possible 
with optical printing.
Paul

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread John Francis

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 09:30:36AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> You present yourself as a true believer, the keeper of the flame.
> Your way is the right way, others are idiots.
> 
> Shel 

How delightfully ironic.  Shel criticising somebody else for
being (or, at least, appearing to be) overly-prescriptive.

Actually, there's a lot of truth in what Shel said.  If you go by
the on-line appearances, you'd have thought that Shel and I, for
example, would be at daggers drawn.  But we're quite capable of
sitting down in a group, amongst other photographers, and amiably
sharing a beer or two; usenet dicussion groups are by no means a
substitute for real life encounters.

It's the nature of the medium, of course - a reply or followup
to a posting will single out those areas of disagreement, and
amplify them disproportionately.  It's rare to see more than a
simple "I agree" in response to other parts of a post, and even
that small concession rarely shows up.  In a face-to-face
discussion there would have been non-verbal feedback to make
that clear; nodding, a quiet "uh-huh", or just body english.

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Bob Blakely

Heretic.
Regards,
Bob...

"A picture is worth a thousand  words,
but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paul,
To not use a technology does not necessarily mean one is opposed to it. 
To
question it's value, or aspects of its use, or how it's used,  or 
comparing
some or all of it unfavorably to another - perhaps older - technology, 
does
not mean that there's an opposition to it.

I enjoy using and driving my cars, yet there are times when it's not the
best way to get around, and the older technology, such as street cars or
cable cars in San Francisco is a better - or at least more realistic -
choice.  Were I to live in SF, it's possible that I'd not even own a car,
but that doesn't mean I'd be opposed to them.
Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or
dismisses older technology as useless or worthless?
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> The term Luddite has been misused quite a bit.  I don't think that it
> should apply to someone who simply chooses not to use a newer
> technology.
However, aside from the historical context, that's pretty much what
"luddite" means -- someone who oppposes technical change. And from the
laments I've seen over the passing of film, the feelings of many go well
beyond "choice." Many film shooters obviously wish that digital had never
happened. By definititon, they're "luddites." Not bad people, just
luddites.

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Bob Blakely

From Webster's Dictionary...
Lud·dite
 1.. Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and 
destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery 
would diminish employment.
 2.. One who opposes technical or technological change.
I am neither of these and don't appreciate being called such and only by a 
leap of prejudice by someone so narcissistic that he can't stand to have 
some personal choice criticized, can I be called such. If you really want to 
continue with insults and name calling, just let me know. The rest of the 
members of this list can attest to the fact that I'm up for (and enjoy) the 
flame. In deference to the other good members of the list I'll refrain from 
returning the insult in kind. but keep in mind that you may be only building 
a few long term enemies who will not look upon you or your posts the same 
way again if you continue.

Regards,
Bob...
Owner of nine patents (read new technology), one pending.

"A picture is worth a thousand  words,
but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Whole lotta drivel in this thread by the film luddites.

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Bob W

> 
> I think the term Luddite is quite applicable:
> 
> Luddite
> n 1: any opponent of technological progress
> 2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed 
> labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment
> 

Better check the definition. 'Not using' is not the same as 'opposing'.
Unless you subscribe to the notion that 'you are either with us, or against
us'.

--
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Gonz

Anti-Aircraft.  Replaces errant jets and jet trails with realistic sky 
color based on the current background.

Rob Studdert wrote:
On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote:

AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like Ansel
Adams?
If not, what actually is an AA filter?

Anti-Aliasing
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Bob W

Yes - it means someone who opposes technical change. Opposes. That's
different from "doesn't use". Someone who doesn't use a particular form of
technology is not necessarily a Luddite.

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

> 
> However, aside from the historical context, that's pretty 
> much what "luddite" means -- someone who oppposes technical 
> change. And from the laments I've seen over the passing of 
> film, the feelings of many go well beyond "choice." Many film 
> shooters obviously wish that digital had never happened. By 
> definititon, they're "luddites." Not bad people, just 
> luddites.  Paul

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Bob W


> 
> Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and 
> shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless?

Nerd.

--
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

A pot calls a kettle "black".
I neither evangelize digital or keep any flames. I like photography, 
and I don't care whether it's done with film or digital equipment. I 
don't even care whether it's Pentax equipment at all. I dislike the 
inanely stupid "well you can only do this with film, digital isn't good 
enough and can't ever make a B&W print I like" bullshit just as much as 
the "digital is the only way this could ever be done" dogma, which are 
both just as insipid as "I don't know how I could live without hyper 
program" and "you have to have ttl flash metering to take these 
pictures".

Questioning the value of certain techniques and choices is fine, I do 
it all the time. But to do it with prejudice and with attitude, with 
the sneering assurance that some new technique cannot be as good as the 
one you espouse ... well, idiocy and drivel drooling Ludditism comes to 
mind. ;-)

This afternoon if I get time, I'll be working on some Minox 8x11 
techniques I've had in my head for a while. If you're interested, I'll 
show some results. It ain't a Pentax and it will be a digital workflow, 
but it will also be film...

Godfrey
On May 16, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
So, if one *questions the value of certain techniques or choices, does 
it
them a Luddite?

Y'know Godfrey, your on line personality is quite different from that 
of
the man I met at the PDML get together. You come across here as very
abrasive and dogmatic, leaving little room for the opinions of others. 
It's
really a shame because you probably have a lot to contribute. However, 
your
demeanor is a real turn off. You present yourself as a digital 
evangelist,
a true believer, the keeper of the flame. Your way is the right way, 
others
are idiots or drivel drooling Luddites.

Shel

[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi

I think the term Luddite is quite applicable:
Luddite
n 1: any opponent of technological progress
2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed
labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Kostas Kavoussanakis

On Mon, 16 May 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> with the subtleties of exposure.  The little buttons make adjustments a
> real PITA.
>
> John Francis loaned me a Super Program which I've yet to try.  From the
> kudos it's received here, it may be a nice alternative to the ME-S.

Not for you, I don't think, it still has the buttons.

Kostas

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

On May 16, 2005, at 11:24 AM, Bob W wrote:
I think the term Luddite is quite applicable:
Luddite
n 1: any opponent of technological progress
2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed
labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment
Better check the definition. 'Not using' is not the same as 'opposing'.
Unless you subscribe to the notion that 'you are either with us, or 
against
us'.
I didn't use write the definition, it does say "opponent" however.
From various people's writing in this thread, it does seem pretty clear 
that they oppose using new technology, not just "don't use" new 
technology. I didn't nominate you personally, so don't take it 
personally.

If they just "didn't use" it, they'd be happy presenting their pictures 
and enjoying a discussion of the photography rather than taking every 
opportunity they get to say that what they are doing with their film 
was impossible or of much higher quality than possible with a newer 
technology.

None of it leads to useful discussion .. rather it leads to the kind of 
animosity and personal attacks that various people have made upon me 
for saying that I don't use film because I find it not as useful to me 
in the pursuit of photography at this time. In not so many words, I've 
been told that I don't know what I'm talking about, obviously can't see 
what's good or bad, am some kind of hysterical evangelistic zealot, 
etc.

Frankly, making friends with people who express these kinds of 
sentiments and prejudice in the casual and supposedly fun discussion of 
a pastime they love is probably worse than making enemies of them.

When I post a film image or two, will I be everybody's friend? Feh.
Godfrey

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread P. J. Alling

Then I can't be a Luddite, I see cell phones as labor causing devices...
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On May 16, 2005, at 6:19 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers 
trust of being a Luddite
for not having a cell phone.  I on the other hand value privacy, 
which is the best reason not to have such a device, if I had one I'd 
never be alone, (which for some people must be the next thing to 
being dead).

There is an "On/Off" switch provided on communications devices. This 
permits privacy and silence when desired, as well as communications 
when desired. I only turn mine on when I want to be available for 
contact.

I think the term Luddite is quite applicable:
Luddite
n 1: any opponent of technological progress
   2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed 
labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment

Godfrey


--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Jostein

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or
dismisses older technology as useless or worthless?
I think Gartner Group has labelled them "early adopters"...:-)
Jostein

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread P. J. Alling

The Gartner Group isn't worth the powder to blow them the heck in my 
opinion, they're not even worth a real curse word...

Jostein wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or
dismisses older technology as useless or worthless?
I think Gartner Group has labelled them "early adopters"...:-)
Jostein

--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Mark Roberts

Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On May 16, 2005, at 6:19 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>> It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers 
>> trust of being a Luddite
>> for not having a cell phone.  I on the other hand value privacy, which 
>> is the best reason not to have such a device, if I had one I'd never 
>> be alone, (which for some people must be the next thing to being 
>> dead).
>
>There is an "On/Off" switch provided on communications devices. This 
>permits privacy and silence when desired, as well as communications 
>when desired. I only turn mine on when I want to be available for 
>contact.

I have a cell phone only because my SO occasionally needs one when she's
on call and she refuses to get one herself. We use it only for outgoing
calls for the most part and don't give out the number except in rare
cases. I think we average perhaps one incoming call per year.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Jens Bladt

I guess the word "luddite" comes from the time, when workers attacked the
factories because new mashinery was about to "take away" their jobs.
Hesitating to convert to new technologies (like CCD's or CMOS insted of
film) is something different. The digital images won't take away the jobs of
the photographers. It will/already have made some lab workers redundant. One
of todays problems with technology is that it eveloves too fast. Cellular
phones is a good example. Who realy neds all this MMS, colour screens,
vidocamera, still camera, PDA facilities etc. ? Most people just need a
phone and perhaps SMS'es. The environmental cost of everybody getting a new
phone every year is enormous. Most people buy digiatal cameras without
realizing why they want it. If you want 4x6 print for your family album
(that's what most people want), thers no reason to go digital. I believe
history will remember our generation as the generation that didn't leave any
photographs for the next generatoin. They will die as fast as the
harddrives, CD's and servers within which they only exist for a few years,
perhaps as much as a decade. Then they'll be lost forever.

Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 16. maj 2005 15:32
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

On 5/16/05, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers
> trust of being a Luddite
> for not having a cell phone.  I on the other hand value privacy, which
> is the best reason not to have
> such a device, if I had one I'd never be alone, (which for some people
> must be the next thing to being dead).

The term Luddite has been misused quite a bit.  I don't think that it
should apply to someone who simply chooses not to use a newer
technology.

cheers,
frank

--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Bob Blakely

Who exactly are the following quote attributed to?
"well you can only do this with film, digital isn't good  enough and can't 
ever make a B&W print I like"

"digital is the only way this could ever be done"
"I don't know how I could live without hyper program"
"you have to have ttl flash metering to take these pictures"
Regards,
Bob...

"A picture is worth a thousand  words,
but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

A pot calls a kettle "black".
I neither evangelize digital or keep any flames. I like photography, and I 
don't care whether it's done with film or digital equipment. I don't even 
care whether it's Pentax equipment at all. I dislike the inanely stupid 
"well you can only do this with film, digital isn't good enough and can't 
ever make a B&W print I like" bullshit just as much as the "digital is the 
only way this could ever be done" dogma, which are both just as insipid as 
"I don't know how I could live without hyper program" and "you have to 
have ttl flash metering to take these pictures".

Questioning the value of certain techniques and choices is fine, I do it 
all the time. But to do it with prejudice and with attitude, with the 
sneering assurance that some new technique cannot be as good as the one 
you espouse ... well, idiocy and drivel drooling Ludditism comes to mind. 
;-)

This afternoon if I get time, I'll be working on some Minox 8x11 
techniques I've had in my head for a while. If you're interested, I'll 
show some results. It ain't a Pentax and it will be a digital workflow, 
but it will also be film...

Godfrey
On May 16, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
So, if one *questions the value of certain techniques or choices, does it
them a Luddite?
Y'know Godfrey, your on line personality is quite different from that of
the man I met at the PDML get together. You come across here as very
abrasive and dogmatic, leaving little room for the opinions of others. 
It's
really a shame because you probably have a lot to contribute. However, 
your
demeanor is a real turn off. You present yourself as a digital 
evangelist,
a true believer, the keeper of the flame. Your way is the right way, 
others
are idiots or drivel drooling Luddites.

Shel

[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi

I think the term Luddite is quite applicable:
Luddite
n 1: any opponent of technological progress
2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed
labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

I'm a luddite and proud of it. I never owned an autofocus lens until last year. 
My Leica has a proper screw mount. Until last year my LX was my most modern 
camera. I still own a Speed Graphic. I own a 1955 Chevrolet, and its my 
favorite vehicle. I have several computers because I need them for work, but I 
frequently write with a pen and paper.

I now shoot digital almost exclusively. It has nothing to do with new vs. old 
or high tech vs. low tech. It has to do with what works best for me.

> Then I can't be a Luddite, I see cell phones as labor causing devices...
> 
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> 
> > On May 16, 2005, at 6:19 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> >
> >> It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers 
> >> trust of being a Luddite
> >> for not having a cell phone.  I on the other hand value privacy, 
> >> which is the best reason not to have such a device, if I had one I'd 
> >> never be alone, (which for some people must be the next thing to 
> >> being dead).
> >
> >
> > There is an "On/Off" switch provided on communications devices. This 
> > permits privacy and silence when desired, as well as communications 
> > when desired. I only turn mine on when I want to be available for 
> > contact.
> >
> > I think the term Luddite is quite applicable:
> >
> > Luddite
> > n 1: any opponent of technological progress
> >2: one of the 19th century English workmen who destroyed 
> > labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment
> >
> > Godfrey
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
>   --Groucho Marx
>

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread John Francis

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 02:00:11PM -0700, Bob Blakely wrote:
> Who exactly are the following quote attributed to?

Well, allowing for a certain amount of journalistic exaggeration, I'd guess:
 
> "well you can only do this with film, digital isn't good  enough and can't 
> ever make a B&W print I like"

Shel
 
> "digital is the only way this could ever be done"

Herb

> "I don't know how I could live without hyper program"

Me
 
> "you have to have ttl flash metering to take these pictures"

??

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Markus Maurer

Hi Graywolf

I take photos on color negative film only and will order enlargments right
of the negative if it is good enough
and does not need any cropping.
I use the computer for adjustments of imperfect shots and for
PDML/Email/Website only.
Printing at home on the Epson 2100 for color prints is more expensive than
ordering an enlarged A4 print here.
I only use the Epson for B/W print to not get those ugly magenta and other
tints from the labs.

thanks for your comment.
greetings
Markus



>>Now here is the $64 question. Why go digital if you are not going
>>to do it yourself?
>>
>>graywolf
>>http://www.graywolfphoto.com
>>"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
>>---
>

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Eric Featherstone

Hi Markus,
I should make things a bit clearer. I like the _simplicity_ of the K1000 
over the MX. There are plenty of things about the MX I prefer over the 
K1000 too (lighter weight, DOF preview, larger viewfinder, smaller size)!
But to answer your original question, The K1000 has a completely 
un-cluttered (i.e. non-distracting) viewfinder. I'm not at all confident 
about composition anyway so the less distraction here the better I guess.
Also I have a preference for the swing needle over the traffic light LEDs, 
not quite sure why (they're ever-so "digital" aren't they ). I'm sure 
some else mentioned that point too a day or so ago. I've often had trouble 
seeing the MX's LEDs in bright daylight, similarly if the sun is glancing 
off the aperture ring numbers they can wash out in the little display above 
the frame. Yes, I know it is equally difficult to see the K1000 needle in 
the dark, but I'm expecting other problems (difficulty in focusing, 
framing) at that point, so it seems like less of an issue perhaps.
Have I just confused you more now? Bottom line is I'll happily use either. 
After all they're both light-tight boxes with some sort of shutter and film 
transport that can be stuck on the back of a lens :-)

Cheers,
Eric.

From: "Markus Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Eric
I'm tempted by an auction for a MX ending in a few days. I would use it as
second body instead of the P30 with the 24mm
wide angle lens.
I never had a MX but started with the ME Super as my first SLR
back in 1981.  I heard a lot of good things about the MX and have read about
the limitations on BOZ too.
But, can you tell me in a few words why  you prefer the K1000 over the MX?
Thanks in advance
Markus

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Cotty

On 16/5/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

>I'm a luddite and proud of it.

With a fast G5 PowerMac?? Yeah, right!!!




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Paul Stenquist

G5? Not me. I'm making do with a dual 1.25 G4. That's just a small step 
up from a typewriter.
Paul
On May 16, 2005, at 6:28 PM, Cotty wrote:

On 16/5/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
I'm a luddite and proud of it.
With a fast G5 PowerMac?? Yeah, right!!!

Cheers,
  Cotty
___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Cotty

On 16/5/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:

>G5? Not me. I'm making do with a dual 1.25 G4. That's just a small step 
>up from a typewriter.

Only a G4?? You *are* a Luddite!!




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Rob Studdert

On 16 May 2005 at 22:58, Jens Bladt wrote:

> Most people buy digiatal cameras without realizing why they want it. If you 
> want
> 4x6 print for your family album (that's what most people want), thers no 
> reason
> to go digital. I believe history will remember our generation as the 
> generation
> that didn't leave any photographs for the next generatoin. They will die as 
> fast
> as the harddrives, CD's and servers within which they only exist for a few
> years, perhaps as much as a decade. Then they'll be lost forever.

I'm with you regarding the environmental impact aspect of changing phones 
yearly (or more) I personally have a hand-me-down and have only owned 4 mobile 
phones since 1992. I think it's a very sad state of affairs that you can often 
buy a new phone and service cheaper than it costs to just maintain a service on 
an existing phone. 

Now back to your point regarding the loss of a generation of images. I think 
that you are partially correct in that a lot of people will lose information 
left on HDDs which isn't backed-up. However I'd venture to say that most of 
these same people would most likely have either lost, damaged or discarded 
their negatives too if they had still been using 35mm print film. Ask a lab 
these days how many people bring in the negs for enlargement, generally they 
only have a 4x6 print to hand over.

The vast majority of the lay-people who I know that now are using digital 
cameras for all their happy snaps most are getting prints made regularly. All 
that seems to have changed is that they don't print everything.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

We'll be expecting the inside story on those large bras.
Paul


> On 16/5/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >G5? Not me. I'm making do with a dual 1.25 G4. That's just a small step 
> >up from a typewriter.
> 
> Only a G4?? You *are* a Luddite!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
>

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Rob Studdert

On 16 May 2005 at 11:58, Graywolf wrote:

> Now here is the $64 question. Why go digital if you are not going to do it
> yourself?

It's a US$25 (Fuji Provia 400F 135-36 RHP AU$24.24 + DnD processing AU$8.80) 
question vs US$3.78 (AU$5.00) for a 16"X20" straight digital print via email.

Print film is cheaper but processing is the same and prints are more costly 
than prints from digital files.

It's not economies of scale that make film use costly here, we've just been 
ripped off for years by all the major vendors and they are suffering for it 
now.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

I love it John  balanced exaggeration.  

In my own defense, I'd like to point out that I've been using digital
cameras longer than many people (most people?) on the list, and certainly a
lot longer than those who started with the istD, I have seen digi B&W that
I LOVE, but not like I prefer (which has a very specific look to it), 
although I continue to seek it out, and it's quite possible that I've made,
or caused to be made through my lab, more very large digi prints (larger
than 36-inches in the small dimension) than most people on this list.  I
neither eschew nor negate digital, but I do question a lot of the
techniques used and the need for certain aspects of it and its processes
often and loudly.

What I find most interesting is that when I (and others) ask a question or
pose a hypothetical, a certain number of people jump up and try to shout
down the questions claiming that I/we are Luddites or anit-digital.  OTOH,
a few people (you and Rob Studdert come quickly to mind) actually take time
to answer the question or offer an explanation, although sometimes I think
you're pretty close to your tolorence level 

OTOH, I can't ever recall Herb being taken to task for his vociferous
pro-digital stance, not even by the so-called Luddites (although I may have
been annoyed at him a few times).

Shel 

John wrote:

> Well, allowing for a certain amount of journalistic exaggeration, I'd
guess:

> "well you can only do this with film, digital isn't good enough and can't 
> ever make a B&W print I like"

> Shel

> "digital is the only way this could ever be done"

Herb

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread William Robb

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" 
Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware


Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or
dismisses older technology as useless or worthless?
Shortsighted.
William Robb

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread William Robb

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Exactly! You know, I couldn't remember exactly how i worded my initial 
critique of the *istD. Thanks for the refresher .
Yer welcome. Count on a refresher at some point in the future
William Robb

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Doug Franklin

On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:30:39 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and
> shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless?

"Early adopter". ;-)

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

RE: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread Alan P. Hayes

At 9:01 AM +1000 5/17/05, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 16 May 2005 at 22:58, Jens Bladt wrote:
 Most people buy digiatal cameras without realizing why they want 
it. If you want
 4x6 print for your family album (that's what most people want), 
thers no reason
 to go digital. I believe history will remember our generation as 
the generation
 that didn't leave any photographs for the next generatoin. They 
will die as fast
 as the harddrives, CD's and servers within which they only exist for a few
 years, perhaps as much as a decade. Then they'll be lost forever.
I'm with you regarding the environmental impact aspect of changing phones
yearly (or more) I personally have a hand-me-down and have only owned 4 mobile
phones since 1992. I think it's a very sad state of affairs that you can often
buy a new phone and service cheaper than it costs to just maintain a 
service on
an existing phone.

regarding the environmental impact of cell phones:


He shoots 8x10 scans and then photoshops the hell out of 'em.
--
Alan P. Hayes
Meaning and Form: Writing, Editing and Document Design
Pittsfield, Massachusetts
Photographs at
http://www.ahayesphoto.com/americandead/index.htm

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

Those were essentially your words tossed back at you 

Shel 


> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> > Questioning the value of certain techniques and choices is fine, I do
it 
> > all the time. But to do it with prejudice and with attitude, with the 
> > sneering assurance that some new technique cannot be as good as the one 
> > you espouse ... well, idiocy and drivel drooling Ludditism comes to
mind.

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread E.R.N. Reed

Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
 

with the subtleties of exposure.  The little buttons make adjustments a
real PITA.
John Francis loaned me a Super Program which I've yet to try.  From the
kudos it's received here, it may be a nice alternative to the ME-S.
   

Not for you, I don't think, it still has the buttons.
 

And it is *definitely* louder.
ERNR

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-16 Thread E.R.N. Reed

On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:30:39 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
 

Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and
shuns or dismisses older technology as useless or worthless?
   

Several!
"Yuppie."
"Trendy."
"Snob."
and some more that involve language I don't use...

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-17 Thread Kostas Kavoussanakis

On Mon, 16 May 2005, William Robb wrote:

>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Shel Belinkoff"
> Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
>
> > Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or
> > dismisses older technology as useless or worthless?
>
> Shortsighted.

What a disappointing answer. You know you can do better than that!

Kostas

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-17 Thread William Robb

- Original Message - 
From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" 
Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware


Shortsighted.
What a disappointing answer. You know you can do better than that!
Sorry. It was what came to mind. I didn't put much thought into it.
William Robb

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

2005-05-17 Thread Shel Belinkoff

Thanks all ... still, since John was good enough to loan me the camera, I
should put some bats in it and at least exercise it for him.  Anyway, I've
never used a Super Program, so it'll be a treat to see how it performs with
an A lenses.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: E.R.N. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 5/16/2005 8:28:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware
>
> Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 16 May 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>with the subtleties of exposure.  The little buttons make adjustments a
> >>real PITA.
> >>
> >>John Francis loaned me a Super Program which I've yet to try.  From the
> >>kudos it's received here, it may be a nice alternative to the ME-S.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Not for you, I don't think, it still has the buttons.
> >
> >  
> >
> And it is *definitely* louder.
>
> ERNR
>

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

However, film has not disappeared. Most of us non-digital users just prefer
film. Very few of us think digital should disappear. It is you pro-digital
idjeets who think film should go away. Of course if I had just spent $20,000 to
seriously go digital, I would probably have to defend that action to the death
also. Besides this Luddite had a Coolpix 100, think about that, you
digital-newby!
GRIN!
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank wrote:
The term Luddite has been misused quite a bit. I don't think that it
should apply to someone who simply chooses not to use a newer
technology.

However, aside from the historical context, that's pretty much what "luddite" means -- someone who
oppposes technical change. And from the laments I've seen over the passing of film, the feelings of many go well
beyond "choice." Many film shooters obviously wish that digital had never happened. By definititon,
they're "luddites." Not bad people, just luddites.
Paul

On 5/16/05, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's funny, I've been accused by the Lawyer for my Great Grandfathers
trust of being a Luddite
for not having a cell phone. I on the other hand value privacy, which
is the best reason not to have
such a device, if I had one I'd never be alone, (which for some people
must be the next thing to being dead).
The term Luddite has been misused quite a bit. I don't think that it
should apply to someone who simply chooses not to use a newer
technology.
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.11 - Release Date: 5/16/2005

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

NOD! 

Something we should all consider more. In my experience every PDML'er I have 
personally met has been a nice person, however they seem on the list. Thanks 
for posting this observation, John.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
John Francis wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 09:30:36AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
You present yourself as a true believer, the keeper of the flame.
Your way is the right way, others are idiots.
Shel 

How delightfully ironic.  Shel criticising somebody else for
being (or, at least, appearing to be) overly-prescriptive.
Actually, there's a lot of truth in what Shel said.  If you go by
the on-line appearances, you'd have thought that Shel and I, for
example, would be at daggers drawn.  But we're quite capable of
sitting down in a group, amongst other photographers, and amiably
sharing a beer or two; usenet dicussion groups are by no means a
substitute for real life encounters.
It's the nature of the medium, of course - a reply or followup
to a posting will single out those areas of disagreement, and
amplify them disproportionately.  It's rare to see more than a
simple "I agree" in response to other parts of a post, and even
that small concession rarely shows up.  In a face-to-face
discussion there would have been non-verbal feedback to make
that clear; nodding, a quiet "uh-huh", or just body english.



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.11 - Release Date: 5/16/2005

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware

I think "True Believers (My way is the only way)" is more accurate. Early 
Adopters like new stuff, they don't necessarily think the old ways are bad. They just 
like to be the first with the new toys.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Jostein wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Is there a term for someone who embraces new technology and shuns or
dismisses older technology as useless or worthless?
I think Gartner Group has labelled them "early adopters"...:-)
Jostein


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.12 - Release Date: 5/17/2005

Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware