gwebster Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Here's a picture of Rosie, one of our kitties. I developed this B&W from a RAW image captured with the Digilux 3. I haven't had this camera very long, but I'm very impressed with it so far and delighted with the quality of the images that it can produce. <p> <center> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6358835-lg.jpg"><br> <strong>Rosie</strong> - <em>Leica Digilux 3, 1/250, f3.5, 100ASA</em> </center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 What did you expect? Camera and lens are not really cheap... But the Olympus E-330 and its 14-54/2.8-3.5 are even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nee_sung Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Highlights seem a bit blown on my monitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 "Highlights seem a bit blown on my monitor." --That's called "Leica Glow." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Nice shot, Gordon. After using my Digilux 1 and Digilux 2, I was strongly tempted to get the 3. So happens I fell for the D200 instead--at least for now. But my Digilux 2 is so easy and intuitive to use, I sort of wish I had gotten it. I had a lot of Nikkors I could use on the D200, so that was one of several things that influenced my choice. Again: Nice work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_brookes5 Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 From what I hear the Olympus E330 has too many gimmicks with not enough quality in the lens and the camera itself. That's unfortunate because Olympus have made some very good cameras and some first class lenses. No doubt we shall get some personal reviews soon but it's a pricey piece of equipment. Canon and Nikon have lost their quality to just dump more pointless pixels on the market. What a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_bergman1 Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 "From what I hear" Have you been listening to your nutty professor again? I find that if you do a George Costanza on her opinions, they make more sense. The Olympus E330 has some wonderful, innovative features, like Live View, that are now appearing on other makes. Olympus continues it's fine tradition in making excellent cameras with unique designs and a wonder set of lenses that draws many new users to their products. The E330 has dropped in price to $550, where is does well in a very competitive market. Canon and Nikon continue to build fine cameras with a continued eye toward better image quality. It is a great time for both digital and film users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrasmussen Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Beautiful image, Gordon. I've got a Digilux 3 myself, and I agree with you on the image quality - it has got a magnificient piece of glass in front of it! On this basis, I don't regret the heavy investment. And the composition and the light is very pleasant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Get the Panasonic version and you have the best of both worlds - an exclussive high quality camera and lens at a very reasonable price. Tempting at $1100.00 if I din't need a new PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Really nice,Gordon. Get the Panasonic version I have have the Panasonic LX1 which i'm more than pleased with. Sorry Leica but all that extra dosh for the red dot!!! The Panasonic L1,different cam but the same principle, is priced at 850gbp, the Leica version 1,750gbp..ouch 900gbp for a red dot!! Now that's what is called 'suck the suckers'. Good luck to Leica.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 I think its a lovely shot Gordon, but the highlights are blown on my monitor too. What editing program did you use? If its in raw, there might be some detal there. But blown highligts are the curse of many, especially point and shoot, digitals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_brookes5 Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Mark - Most of this info comes from a long time friend, a buyer of an Olympus E330 after a Canon with which he was disappointed. I must admit that he changes cameras every four or five years. He was an enthusiastic OM 1 user who very reluctantly sold it. He says the new one is not built anything like as well as the OM 1. He says it is 'gimmick ridden'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ishik_tuna Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 i recently got a digilux 3 as an upgrade from Leica for a digilux 2 that had a sensor failure. it is a VASTLY superior camera, in my opinion. The images produced are better, the camera is "easier" to use, and in spite of the critics, the viewfinder is plenty bright. I'm looking forward to trying my telyt-r telephoto... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 <i>Most of this info comes from a long time friend</i><p>Second-hand information is second-hand information...how does anyone know if this person used the Canon right? Lots on non-information...<p><I>Have you been listening to your nutty professor again?</i><p>If the professor existed, we would know who it was by now. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 <i>I think its a lovely shot Gordon, but the highlights are blown on my monitor too</i><p>It's not just the monitor, the histogram shows a lot of 255/255/255. It's not always possible to avoid this situation, and it's not necessarily a bad thing photographically, but it's a poor endorsement for a camera. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwebster Posted August 31, 2007 Author Share Posted August 31, 2007 <em>... it's a poor endorsement for a camera</em> <p> Since you are looking at a JPEG that I converted from a TIFF that was developed from a RAW, how can you possibly know what the original pixel values in the camera were? Even the pixel depth is not the same between these different file formats and for all you know, I increased the brightness and "blew" the highlights in post-processing. There's simply no way you can know what the original pixel values in the RAW file were and any comments about the camera itself based upon such assumptions are therefore dubious to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Then, using exactly the same logic, posting it as an example isn't a particularly good idea, quite dubious value in that. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwebster Posted August 31, 2007 Author Share Posted August 31, 2007 <em>Then, using exactly the same logic, posting it as an example isn't a particularly good idea, quite dubious value in that</em> <p> Not so ... as you yourself said, the presence of featureless highlights is <em>not necessarily a bad thing photographically</em> and indeed, based upon your own words, their presence in this image has no bearing on the quality of the camera. <p> I find the constant twittering on these forums about "blown" highlights rather silly. Why do you barely ever hear anybody complain about featureless shadows? Yes of course we always want to maximize our choice in these matters by exposing the scene in such a way that gives us the maximum possible latitude with our images, and yes of course - if we are not careful, we may exceed the dynamic range of our medium and lose detail where we actually wanted to record it - but sometimes texture-less highlights (or shadows) are a CHOICE and not an exposure error. Failure to recognize the potential to deliberately utilize these effects in photos might be the result of a very formulaic approach to photography learned from technical books on the subject that are actually trying to help the photographer avoid exposure errors rather than laying down some imagined set of aesthetic rules like "thou shalt not have texture-less highlights in thine images". I don't think that this necessarily applies to you Jeff, but there seem to be a lot of people on these forums who have learned the same photographic "rulebook" by rote and then try to pass off regurgitated chunks of it as learned criticism whenever somebody posts an image that strays from their ponderous notions of what "good photography" should be. <p> Furthermore, consider this - I see featureless highlights all the time when I look at any brightly lit scene with my own eyes (whose dynamic range puts any digital camera to shame). For example, unless they are extremely low power, light bulbs appear as featureless blobs of light - I don't see the structural details of the glowing filament underneath (unless I happen to be viewing the bulb through a welder's mask). Therefore, it's clear that featureless highlights are even a component of natural vision and not just some artefact of digital cameras - and so long as we are careful to optimize our exposures to record the detail we actually WANT to record, there is no reason why we should be so afraid of them in our photographs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_brookes5 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Jeff - This friend was a first class photographer with many pictures published. I have known him since we went to Le Mans together in the 1950s. He knows one hell of a lot about cameras and photography so I rate his opinions highly. I bought my Digilux 2 on his advice as I was quite happy with the 5mp pictures people were showing on web sites. (He has a Digilux 2 himself - or rather his wife has) I don't think he will keep the E330 long judging by his remarks to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 No names, no photos, no believe. Anyone can tell a story. What about that professor? No name, no photos. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 "(unless I happen to be viewing the bulb through a welder's mask)"<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Blown highlights! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwebster Posted August 31, 2007 Author Share Posted August 31, 2007 Looks like you blew it big time Robert! The only thing worse than "blown" highlights is "sucked" shadows - that's why I hate the work of Ansel Adams - all those sucked shadows with no detail. He obviously needed lessons in how to control exposure ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 This was posted as a thread about a sample image from a specific camera. As such, it tells us only that it is possible to get blown highlights from an image from that camera. If the original doesn't have blown highlights, it would certainly be possible to post a differently processed version, so why not do that? <p><i>, it's clear that featureless highlights are even a component of natural vision </i><p>The purpose of photography is not to reproduce the eye. If it were, everything would have a panoramic component. And it would be very boring - what makes photography interesting is what the photographer puts into it, not what the eye/brain interaction is. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Old film adage... Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now