Which "cheap leica" took these pictures?

[ray_chang2]

<P> <CENTER> <IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=1093454&size=md"> </CENTER> <P>

<P> <CENTER> <IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=1093465&size=md"> </CENTER> <P>

 

Panasonic Lumix-20 with vario-elmarit zoom lens.

$200 2MP digital camera at Walmart. (Apparently they can't give them

away, marked down to $200.)

[james_.1]

Those are some nice photos. Lots of character. Looks like a nice Leica "glow" too : ).

[george_b1]

Unfortunately, there's really no way to tell how a slide or negative that is presented on this list has either been cropped, modified, or enhanced with Photoshop before being placed here for comment unless the member tells us.

 

I'd like to see the webnaster require that every photograph up here for review be accompanied with an explanation of how - - or if - - it has been modified.

[gib]

very nice shots....I am not familiar with that camera. Did you shoot it black and white in the camera? Or put it on the PC and turn it into bw there? How did you do it?

[steve_hotchkiss]

I am trying to figure out why so much of the shots looks the same except for the shirt (sweater). They look quite different but I am not sure which is right or which I prefer.

[scott_eaton]

Damn, coulda swore it was Tri-X pan pushed a stop D-76 :- )

 

Call me 'good', but I had the media and price range before I scrolled down. Was kinda hoping you'd wait to drop the 'zinger' though.

 

I have a better idea. Let's not offer descriptives for ANY digital images. Can't evaluate an image on actual, true, photographic merits, then I don't want your opinion anyway.<div></div>

[msitaraman]

Hah! A perfect illustration of my point yesterday in

<a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003xGi>this</a> thread yesterday.<br><p>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003xGi<br><p>

 

George Berger, my point was that you can consider your computer screen to be the valid photographic medium of display, and the camera plus photoshop to be the valid instrument for taking the picture. <br><p>

As Scott points out succinctly, the value of a photographic image is equipment independent, and it is truly amazing, when you think about, how the essential worth of a photo stands up regardless of having it presented in very low resolution and size and that too at a mere 72 dots per inch computer screen.<br><p>

 

Thank you, Ray, thank you! Consider yourself to be the HCB to your digicam!

[john_bald]

Thanks, Ray. Very interesting. Beautiful images. $200 at Walmart?! Six months ago, its street price was listed as $360.

I looked up the specs on the Lumix LC20, with its Leica DC Vario-Summicron lens (7 elements in 6 groups). See <a href="http://www.panasonic-europe.com/lumix/frame.asp?lang=en">Panasonic Europe</a> and <a href="http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/digitalcameras/0,39001468,39046702,00.htm">CNET Asia review</a>.

[jsbc]

Incidentally, Ray, HOW did you take this picture? Did you crop it?

 

The reason I ask is that this image has a relatively shallow depth of field that one would not normally associate with small PnS digitals given their small image sensor and accompanying small CoC.

 

Johnson

[ray_chang2]

Thanks for the answers.

 

Yes, the original image was modified in Photoshop. The 5 minutes I spent on each picture were used to desaturate, adjust curve to give it some toe (I'm ashame to say very heavy handedly), and a little bokeh by gaussian blur. The reason the sweater looks different is my magnetic lasso went nuts in the middle of the selection process and I didn't bother to fix it.

 

I didn't try to simulate b & w filtering or dial in some film grain, but you can see in Scott's version some film grain does make the image pop. I don't know what's more artificial, digital manipulation or Tri-X film curve, so I really don't have a point to make here.

 

This my 1st digital and I only bought the camera last week because the words "leica lens" were on the box (and the price). It's disheartening in many ways for a film shooter like me. To be honest, a picture taken with any camera hand held at 1/30 sec has about the same amount of info as this low end digital (which for some reason lets me shoot at lower speed).

 

Mani, thanks for the kind words but I'm afraid Henri might not like this camera because of its shutter lag (about 1 sec?) and the 5 sec between shot time.

 

I was told Office Max also sells this camera for $200.

 

-Ray

[jonathan_bundick]

"...film grain does make the image pop."

 

I thought, from many posts on Photo.net, and other forums, that the lack of grain was a primary advantage of digital. So you go to the trouble of adding it back?