Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by nels, Mar 30, 2006.
Wouldn't be complete without our impeccably dressed driver Ranjeet.
You should have taken a film camera with print films for this type of lighting conditions, Nels. My snaps using a Minox GL fared somewhat better. Only, I had to use the ND filter a lot as the top speed on that featherwiegt camera was 1/500s.
How can you tell that it wasn't print film?
Vivek, I don't necessarily think "you should" is an appropriate response to what Nels has
shown here. While his compositions may not be my personal bag of rocks, his consistency is
undeniable, and he does knock out a cracker from time to time. It sure beats waxing about
summicrons and what-color-leather.
Vivek - I don't know...with the poorer dynamic range of film, pictures in such harsh contrasty afternoon light may not have fared much better. If you have any scanned, please feel free to post.
We were so pressed for time, and this place turned out to be much farther away from Udaipur (where we stayed) than what we anticipated, so we ended up there in the middle of the day. Needed to be here early AM or very late afternoon. This was one of the most contrasty light I've shot in. It was painful just to keep the eyes open. Maybe next time, I'll plan my hotel stays more carefully and closer to the destinations.
(No offense Nels, 2:25 and (1st) 2:28 float my boat, but the rest of them I ain't feelin')
None taken, Tom. Thanks.
Alright, I wasn't making any observations on Nels' composition, subjects and the like. If "should" was offensive, please excuse me for picking a bad choice of a word. My apologies.
Nels, If I find some rolls, I will scan and post them. I will make sure that they get your attention. Cheers!
It sure beats waxing about summicrons and what-color-leather.
I agree, Tom. Let me also add that Nels' contributions here are much appreciated as well
(not to mention the humour- low D-range of film).
Nels _ , mar 30, 2006; 04:18 p.m.
Vivek - I don't know...with the poorer dynamic range of film
Since when does digital have the dynamic range of film? I have yet to see it. Digital images can be very clear and precise, but to me inferior in terms of dimensional and dynamic range when compared to film. If the difference is the medium or the lenses used I still have yet to see where digital is superior in the manner you claim.
I like them Nels.
Matt Alofs www.1pt4.com
Vivek, Gary, et al - Without getting side-tracked into yet another digi vs. film debate, I'll just point out that it's well known that digi does better shadow details. With a good full frame sensor RAW file and good processing technique, one can extract much more accurate color and dynamic range than ever was possible with 35mm film. Hope this is not news to you guys.
From the Leica Guru Erwin Puts:
"... a much higher dynamic range than can be put on paper."
"Electronic sensors have a larger dynamic range than film (at least the better sensors do)" from
"let me be more frank....sh*t sux"
Thanks for the constructive criticism.
Nels, I do not read Erwin Puts. No, I am not interested in this vs that either. Once again, my apologies for the insensitive post.
Mr.Kim: I want to see lots of pix from you. You know what I mean?
JK - you are going to Japan. Overdose on sushi, pick up another M body at a second hand shop and start shooting. Either the food or the price tag should do the trick when it comes to hiccups. ;-)
Vivek - I only heard about Erwin Puts in glorigying terms from various Leica fans online. As long as he was tooting the Solms horn, he was a genius. The moment the guy injects a dose of truth in Leica's digital (non-)strategy, and claims (after his usually exhaustive methods of testing) that full frame digital is superior to 35mm film on many counts, the Leica film fanboys wants to disown the man. Let me assure you, I'm not the only one who finds it funny.
Do you have proof that 35mm film has better dynamic range than some of the top of the line full frame sensors?
Nels, I have heard of Erwin Puts from here as well. After one read of one of his articles, I gave up on him for good. Yes, amusing indeed.
I don't have to come up with any proof for this or that. There is plenty of info everywhere that you probably are fully aware of already.
I am no stranger to digital. I do use film as well. A pity that glass plates have disappeared. If they were available readily, I may be using them as well.
As you say, "whatever rows your boat.."
Nels, Here is a shot of one of my current dSLRs for you
Thanks for the constructive criticism.
How is "I like them" any more constructive or informative than "sux?"
Ray, Criticism has a negative connotation. Don't you know?
I like them is positive as it is appreciation.
"I like them" is indeed not more informative than "sux." But if I tell you your stuff is crap, I'll at least tell you why I think so. "Sux" is just pointless baiting, which in retrospect I shouldn't have responded to.
Separate names with a comma.