Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 11/22/2004 10:17:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:


> Still there are things to consider. Mr. Jodoin wrote all kinds of praise 
> for anything Canon makes as long as it costs more than a few thousand. (I 
> wonder who the major advertisers are in his rag). Why I say that is due to the 
> fact that until recently, I maintained two (yes 2) 35mm systems, at MY own 
> expense. One of them was Canon, and while I owned and enjoyed the 85 f1.2L, I was 
> also the proud and happy owner of an 85 f1.8, that with the exception of wide 
> open and a stop or two down, was far sharper than the 1.2L. I made my living 
> with this gear for a while, not writing ad copy like some people . . . 
> actual real world, money making, live experience . . . which customers, not camera 
> manufacturers, paid me for.
> 
> If you have a good relationship with a dealer (a professional level . . . it 
> is rare they wish to grant favours to someone they see once a year), ask 
> them to try out a couple of samples. A dealer who wants to work with you ought 
> not to cringe at that. Most of my medium format optics (gone now . . . haven't 
> shot with an RB or 'blad for years) were acquired that way, and ALL of my 
> large format glass was acquired after testing various samples.
> 
> good luck
> Paul Aparycki
> 

Just for the record: I'm a full time working photographer and I don't give a 
damn about Canon's advertizing budget or anyone elses for that matter. Most 
marketing people don't always want to hear what I have to say about their 
products because they can't always handle the truth. I only write about products I 
like irrespective of the ad budget. The WPPI folks like what I have to say and 
they publish it because it is useful information. If they don't like what I 
have to say, they don't have to publish it. I also like/own Sigma EX lenses, 
Tamron, Tokina and some Nikkors. I use both sides of my brain and all the f/stops 
on my lenses, as required, irrespective of cost. The topic of the thread had 
to do with the FACT that a finer well site pitch, in concert with a mild (or 
none) Anti Aliasing filter demands more performance. While others might 
otherwise your inference mildly insulting, you appear to be on the same quest for 
"musical truth" in photography, as I am, so let it roll.

As a beta tester for the original Foveon camera in 1999, I discovered how 
good Canon lenses could be or not simply because the 6 micron pitch of that 
camera, which had 3 chips and NO anti-aliasing, EFFECTIVELY (and co-incidentally) 
used the inability of the lenses to resolve the 6 micron pitch as a LOW PASS 
filter, thus avoiding any kind of moire issues, which that camera was known for 
(along with superior color). The Photodo MTF curves have corroborated my 
findings as well.

I have both of the 85's in my studio. While you pay an extra grand for the 
extra stop on the 85 mm f/1.2, it is sharper after f/2 unless you got a bad one, 
since I have tested 3 different  onew (the other 2 from friends), so my 
sampling is not limited to one lens. I think the f/1.8 is a better value, but in 
terms of ultimate resolution, the f/1.2 goes 1 step further for more dollars, 
weight, and slower focusing. Again, I simply after the ultimate mate to the new 
Mark 2 sensor, irrespective of cost.

The biggest issue I have with digital capture in general is the double 
standard. We gladly paid $3,000 for a 150mm f/4 Zeiss portrait lens but most photogs 
think that $1,500 is too much money for equivalent or better performance on a 
24x36mm sensor. I guess we all need something to bitch about.

Same is true for tri-level unsharp masking (when's the last time anyone put 
their color negs under a microscope, sharpened the neg, and sharpened the paper 
in the darkroom before printing....hmmmmm) and some of the gross 
manipulations I see in Photoshop, but hey, to each their own.

Claude


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]