doris_chan

Further to Edmo's recent (now sadly truncated) thread on images from Iraq, I thought

people might be interested to know that the total number of journalists killed in the

country now exceeds the number killed during the Vietnam War. In a little over 2 years, 67

(the actual number is probably slightly higher as two people are missing presumed dead)

journalists and support staff have been killed - this compares to 63 journalistic fatalities

during the decades long conflict in Vietnam.

"why not use Tri-X or or Ilford HP and take care of these underexposures? No matter how

emotional & strong the content, it's important to take care of your images quality. Most of

them don't look good"

What underexposure? Why TriX? They look fine to me.

Dear Mr Brad wrote:"What Doris is trying to say, and is apparently (and intentionally) being

lost here......"

Mr Brad, to begin with, just like you, I suspected that people were deliberately choosing to

misinterpret my comments. Now? I really don't know. Mr Guy keeps responding to points

that I (or anybody else for that matter) haven't made. I now feel like we're all starring in an

unusually odd episode of The Twilight Zone.

Mr Travis, I refer you to my earlier comments. The "test" that matters for either camera is

how they deliver in the hands of a photographer. Real world nuances are totally lost when

people photograph test charts and wooden fences - it takes time to understand the

potential/shortcomings of any camera.

Guy, as I said earlier I won't offer any more comment on the relevancy of your "tests", but I

will respond to this: "you can hide behind that keyboard all you want but in my face would

you say the same degrading comments, I think not". Strange, why wouldn't I make these

comments to your face? Do you have a proclivity for mindless violence towards those who

hold different views to you? If not, then I can't see what the problem would be. In my day

to day life I have all kinds of discussions/disagreements with friends/colleagues which are

far more frank than the exchanges I've had with you here. It doesn't generally end in

violence or tears.......

"check out anything by......Christine Rodero Garcia"

For the sake of those googling I'm guessing Jeff means Christina Garcia Rodero.

Russ, this is the strongest set of images I've seen on this forum. Ed, and others, have

posted stronger individual images but I've never seen anything as relevant, coherent, and

moving as this here. You have to continue with this, whatever the outcome.

"Ray's a laugh' is not strictly street"

True, but it's hard to imagine any photographer not benefiting from seeing it. It was as

radical on publication in the 90s as Frank's The Americans was in the 50s.

"Putting up pretty pictures is not the intent"

Guy and Maestro, one last attempt (you'll be pleased to hear) at rationality. The issue isn't

whether the pictures are

"pretty", it's whether they're of sufficient technical accomplishment to be of any

consequence in assessing the relative merits of the two cameras. You and Maestro believe

that they are, I and others believe that they're not. Why does this scepticism upset you to

such an extent? If Maestro didn't want a response then it was foolish of him to post the

link on a discussion forum. If you disagree with my comments then why don't you simply

state your reasons rather than just hurling insults and innuendo around.

I don't know how such sensitive souls get through daily life. Try and get a sense of

perspective, you're playing around with two expensive cameras, not working to free the

world of malaria......

"They also assume multiple aliases here and on other forums and may well all be the same

person"

Maestro, prove you're not me........

Paul Graham's American Night.

William Eggleston's Guide.

Antoine D'Agata's Stigma.

Graciela Iturbide's Juchitan de las mujeres.

Gilles Peress's The Silence.

Luc Delahaye's Wintereisse.

Richard Billingham's Ray's a Laugh (the best book of the last 20 years).

"Also do you honestly think I would put up images from clients shoots on the web to steal"

What is this a reference to?

"I really think you just like to moan"

You're welcome to think that, but you'd find it harder to justify.

"is it you own Canon and don't want to hear something interesting"

Yes, I own Canon. I also own Leica M. I'd love to "hear something interesting", but sadly

you're not providing that.

"Frankly you need a life"

Priceless, coming from the guy responsible for all those pictures of charts and wooden

elks. I have no problem at all with you, or anyone else, running tests on Canons, Leicas,

washing machines or anything else. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with people

pointing out potential shortcomings in those tests. Why be so insecure about it? If you

don't think the comments are fair then explain why rather than childishly goading people

to "get a life". I'm not alone in thinking that "tests" like yours have limited value, it's one of

the reasons that the Galbraith site (one of the few useful tech sites) provided seperate

forums for people like yourself - an awful lot of people found the endless Zeiss v Leica v

Canon threads utterly sterile and pointless. Now everybody's happy at the Galbraith site -

photographers get forums to discuss the issues that matter to them, and the camera club

type get their "lens war" threads.

"with slide film you have choice of film"character" eg compare fujichrome, agfachrome etc

etc. As far as I know you would lose that choice if you go fully digital, correct me if I'm

wrong"

OK. You're wrong. You can alter the "character" in a minor way by your choice of jpg

settings, and in a major way (comparable to using radically different film emulsions) via

RAW processing and subsequent balancing in Photoshop.

"Doris Chan is only offering lip"

Barry, why don't you specify what it is about my "lip" that you're disputing? I thought "lip"

was the whole point of a discussion forum.

"what credential does he offer to qualify his opinion as anything but his own animus and

bias???"

What difference do my "credentials" make to the technical quality of the images that Guy

has

put up on the linked thread. Even if I've never so much as picked up a camera in my life it

wouldn't alter the fact that the images are of such low technical quality that it would be

foolish to draw any conclusions about the two cameras. There are a number of definitions

for the word "animus" but none of them have any relation to the comments I've made here.

Bias? Bias to or against what? The point that I'm making is that the quality of the "tests"

don't allow for any bias for or against either camera.

"Just wondering."

Me too. Why not elucidate your own comments?

"as a working pro I am supposed to play for a couple months with this to make sure I

know what I am doing. Wrong it goes into service 9 am Monday morning to work"

Bizarre. I hope for your sake that whoever hires you isn't reading this,

because if they are you might just find that you have all the time in the world for your

camera testing. It doesn't matter if you're working at the top end or you're a bottom feeder

you shouldn't be using equipment for paid work that you don't know inside out.

"I don't have time for BS"

That's a very questionable statement.

"These are tools not toy's"

Again, questionable.

"i am running a test that compares camera's"

The problem with that is that all cameras have their idiosyncracies that need to be

overcome before you can use them in a meaningful way. The primary idiosyncracy of

Canon 1 series cameras (film as well as digital) is that their meters suck big time (on

anything other than spot) compared to the competition- I've no idea why this is, but they

do. The fact that photographers put up with this is a sign that they do other things

exceedingly well. Not taking this into account renders any preliminary tests fairly pointless

with regard

to potential image quality.

"I am trying to show is what is coming out of the camera and NOT my experience with

software"

What matters is what each of these cameras can do at it's best with optimum exposure and

RAW processing (which is presumably different for the two cameras), not what each does

at

your "neutral" and equal default settings. It's reasonable to assume that most people who'll

pony up for cameras as expensive as these will be prepared to go to great lengths to

exploit their full potential rather than just slap them on auto for exposure and white

balance.

"Even more interesting is that at merely "10mp" the DMR gives visibly more "effective

resolution" than the Canon's 16mp"

And even more interesting than that is that a guy describing himself as a "pro" with two of

the

most expensive cameras on the market seemingly can't match with either the quality that

an average

amateur gets from a $500 digi autoeverything compact. The images on the linked thread

are so startlingly technically inept that it would be foolish to draw any conclusions at all

about the Leica or the Canon. There's no reason to imagine that the Leica won't give OK

quality, but equally there's no real reason yet to imagine it'll be better than (or even as

good as), say, a Canon 20D at a fraction of it's price. On another thread people were

drooling over the "film-like" quality of posted images from the Leica but in reality they

showed nothing that hasn't been available from Canon and Nikon for years. The real

shame is that Leica didn't throw all it's resources at a digi M, if they had then they might

well be

viable again. Good or bad a digi R will struggle in the marketplace just like a film R.

Good luck. Keep the flag flying for color and carry on giving the finger to the TriX

taliban......

Eighty three per cent flies. Eleven per cent mash. Six per cent D76 powder. A healthy and

balanced diet.

DPP is way better than many people give it credit for. If image quality is the most

important thing then DPP is a real contender. Try it and see if it gives you what you want.

Have a look at Sightwalk by Gueorgeui Pinkhassov, it looks good, it feels good, it even

smells good. The Black Triangle by Josef Koudelka is worth checking out, as is, at the

modest end of the scale, Robert Frank's Thank You.

"I never made such a claim"

Hmmm. Time for the semantic showdown?

"I have plenty of knowledge and experience on teaching photography....I will give my

students excellent training in photography"

Z, the quotes are accurate. They're from a couple of recent threads (while you were in

prison) in which Raid got prickly when eyebrows were raised at his accounts of instructing

students in photography. I'm amazed you didn't have wifi in your cell.......

"the magazine probablly wanted him to use digital"

This is what it's really about - reducing costs. In the coming issues you'll see a lot of

digitally produced stories from photographers like John Stanmeyer who've never worked

for NatGeo in the past. The ethos has changed and it would be foolish for people like

Harvey and Webb not to be glancing nervously over their shoulders - they may be good

but those Velvia and Kodachrome bills really mount up........