Digital BW, The Print

Wangalb,

Leica and Contax lenses once were the best in the world. That's no
longer true. Today, several lenses can and do produce sharper images
than Leitz. The Canon 3.5 Macro lens was judged by popular photography
to be the sharpest lens they ever tested. It recieved their A+ rating at
16x24 inches. I own the lens, and I have had many leica and contax
lenses in my photo career. This Canon macro lens is indeed the sharpest
lens I have ever owned for 35mm Photography. The second best was the
Leitz Elmarit 90mm. It beat out the 90mm Summicron, and I was very
surprised at that! Today, most pro lenses are so close to each other in
quality, that for all practical purposes I don't think it really makes
much of a difference which brand you own.  But 30 years ago, it was
Leica and Contax, no doubt. I cannot imagine any current pro lens that
couldn't make an incredibly sharp 11x14" print. And my D60 can certainly
equal any of these cameras at 11x14 inches.

Jerry

wangalb wrote:
> 
> > > Who cares at 600%? I'm talking side by side comparison. in
> person. right
> > > in front of you. Not magnified 600 percent!
> 
> It does matter to be honest. If you're shooting Leica or Contax, that
> 600% resolution adds a lot to the snap and shadow detail in a
> photograph particularly B and W. If you're shooting Nikon or Canon,
> the lens resolution isn't as good as that of Leica or Contax (with
> the exception of a few Canon lenses such as the 50mm f1.4) so it
> isn't going to show up the final print. I had some Portra film put
> into my R4 and blown up 8 by 10 inches and I am happy with it. Of
> course I'm also happy with my 1 megapixel 8 by 10 inch prints which
> are improved up in Photoshop and the Epson printer too but for
> different reasons.
> 
> Perhaps a Minilux would do the trick? (thoughts of a 6 MP Minilux
> dancing around)...
> >
> > The problem is, Jerry, you are then letting output get in the way
> of judging
> > the actual file.
> 
> Actually that's the only thing that counts. I've been lousy prints
> done from Leica/Contax shots. People in a gallery are going to judge
> you on whether you walk the walk but not talk the talk.
> 
>  Also, depending on your output size 600 percent (6x loupe)
> > may be just the right comparison...remember 1x on a monitor is only
> 72dpi.
> 
> The monitor is the lousiest way to judge your final print. You have
> to print it out on a real printer to judge whether you did a good job
> or not.
> 
> > Honestly, I haven't met anyone who does BW work other than you who
> thinks
> > digital shooting is better than film...with respect to
> detail/resolution.
> 
> Actually I know a lot of people who do BW work that like digital
> shooting better. Some of them are PJ's as well but it's the perceived
> detail/resolution and not the actual detail/resolution which the
> average viewer is going to look for.
> 
> application)...but we
> > know that we aren't getting the same amount of information and that
> our
> > options will be limited.
> 
> Agreed. Scanning film is still superior to shooting digital. However,
> digital shooting in street photography is glorious experience by far
> but it doesn't beat a Leica M6/M7 yet :) IMHO!
> 
> > story...particularly when you get larger than about 11x14...I agree
> the
> > prints are sharper.
> >
> And also when you're shooting Leica or Contax equipment. Using Nikon
> or Canon zoom lenses isn't going to be mean too much relative to
> primes. What equipment you use does matter there in terms of final
> resolution. Those lenses approach MF quality especially when you're
> getting up to 11 by 14 and beyond. I'm willing to bet that a Leica M6
> plus Hexanon-M will win over the Canon EOS D-60 plus 28-135 zoom any
> day :> even at smaller sizes like 8 by 10's.
> 
> Alf
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/