Confirmation that Leica & Zeiss rule the roost

Well, lets be frank -- Kodachrome is great, but it takes me at least 2 weeks to get it processed when I can get my E6 done in 3 hours at a pro-lab less than a mile from my home. The archival life of E6 is still going to be very good -- especially the new Fuji films -- Velvia 100 and 100F are estimated to last at least 100 years in archival storage (see Ken Rockwell.com). E6 also stands up better to projection than Kodachrome, so if you project often, you either need to make a dupe, or expect it to fade. E100G is pretty close to Kodachrome in color balance, except for a tendency to go blue/magenta under really overcast skies. Plus, they have a speed advantage. If I could shoot Kodachrome and get it processed quickly (even 2-3 days), then I would, but it is just too much of a hassle.
 
Kodachrome processing is no different today than 50 years ago. I've heard all the E6 hype for a long, long time. Kodachrome is unforgiving if not used carefully and I learn something new with each roll. My experience has been "gratification delayed vs gratification denied". :) Never liked the higher ASA E6 color films for reasons related to grain, color accuracy, saturation etc. In other words, IMHO they produce artificial looking results. OK if that's what you want.

The new Fuji Astia 100 looks nice for MF. Hope it lasts as long as they say. Who knows for sure? For sure it won't last as long as Kodachrome. :angel:
 
snaggs said:
I was pointed to this faq in a discussion of slide vs neg for scanning when I noticed there first point up the top of the page.. seems from there experience Leica & Zeiss truly do capture more resolution.
http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqscan.html
Click to expand...

Leica and Zeiss "rule the roost" ? Finally somebody dares to say it !
Unmasking choice of words, points out what this resolution nonsense really is about.

We had this kinda stuff here already, and I think we don't need more of it.

Bertram
 
Well, I no longer use Kodachrome; I prefer many of the modern films and I may be naive but I think image permanence with E6 is pretty good nowadays -- not on a par with mono, of course, but even there, the limiting factor is film base life, so I wouldn't give ANYTHING on non-polyester bases more than about 200 years under anything resembling normal storage.

Quite honestly, I don't drool over any film or lenses. I have a couple of 'magic' lenses (38/4.5 Biogon on Alpa, 75/2 Summicron for Leica) but having the right focal length, speed, etc., and the camera with me is a lot more important. My photography wouldn't suffer all that much if I had to go back to lenses of 20+ years ago -- several of which I still use anyway.

I seriously doubt that many photographers are limited by their kit if they use good modern RF cameras and lenses, be it Voigtlander, Rollei, Voigtlander or of course Leica. But the fancy stuff is so nice to use...

Cheers,

Roger
 
Roger Hicks said:
But the fancy stuff is so nice to use...
Cheers,
Roger
Click to expand...
Agreed, Roger., tho "fancy" is relative too. Compared to a modern Nikon 1.8/50AF SLR lens even a nice J8 feels like a gem.
In principle Zeiss and Leica are surely top products , no doubt about it . And as far as Zeiss is concerned one can speak of a reasonable price level. You can't say that for Leica , at a factor 3X or 5X one cannot speak of an adaequate price, this is just nuts.
But if someone tells me he is crazy for it and pays the price anyway, why not ?
Nothing wrong with that. We are all doing "irrational" things, and often the most irrational decisions are the most funny things at all, aren't they ?

But if somebody buys Leica gear to be sure he belongs to the roost- rulers I'd say this is the wrong way, no matter was his intention is :D

If I should feel one day that I am not capable any longer to rule the roost I'd buy some of those blue pills. Much cheaper, better effect too because not beeing any kind of substitute, hits the nail on the head so to say. ;)

Emulsionly, from roost to roost,

Bertram
crowing :D
 
Bertram2 said:
If I should feel one day that I am not capable any longer to rule the roost I'd buy some of those blue pills. Much cheaper, better effect too because not beeing any kind of substitute, hits the nail on the head so to say. ;)
:D
Click to expand...

Bertram, I am getting so "down" reading this forum that I think I'll get a blue Zorki on ebabe to replace my blue pills. :)
 
Iskra 2 said:
Bertram, I am getting so "down" reading this forum that I think I'll get a blue Zorki on ebabe to replace my blue pills. :)
Click to expand...

Well, if that blue Zorki can do the job better and for less money, DO IT !! :D
 
snaggs said:
I was pointed to this faq in a discussion of slide vs neg for scanning when I noticed there first point up the top of the page.. seems from there experience Leica & Zeiss truly do capture more resolution.



http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqscan.html
Click to expand...

When I scan to 5400 DPI I end up with 250 MB files. That gives Photoshop indigestion on my PC. I find that 2700 DPI is ample to show up the quality of my lenses.... And saves a lot of time working the files (and scanning; to scan one 35 slide to 5400 DPI at 16x oversampling takes about 4 hours on my Minolta scanner, probably melting down the film in the process.) The resolution then obtained is about the same as a medium format digital module. I don't think film can render that well.So these guys seem a bit over the top with their 200 to 500 MB files IMHO. Still it is a nice compliment they gave Zeiss and Leica.
 
jaapv said:
When I scan to 5400 DPI I end up with 250 MB files. That gives Photoshop indigestion on my PC. I find that 2700 DPI is ample to show up the quality of my lenses.... And saves a lot of time working the files (and scanning; to scan one 35 slide to 5400 DPI at 16x oversampling takes about 4 hours on my Minolta scanner, probably melting down the film in the process.) The resolution then obtained is about the same as a medium format digital module. I don't think film can render that well.So these guys seem a bit over the top with their 200 to 500 MB files IMHO. Still it is a nice compliment they gave Zeiss and Leica.
Click to expand...

I would disagree...I scan at 4800dpi with ICE and no double sampling (unless the neg is very very dark), and it only takes 2-3 minutes with 35 and 5-7 minutes with 6x7. The 6x7 comes out with a 400mb file. It doesn't motor through photoshop, but it is certainly workable on my computer. I find I get much better prints if I scan at full resolution. For the web, it is a toss up, but I figure I would rather just scan once and archive it, so I might as well scan it as best as I can. I can always downsize it...
 
You're right, I was deliberately overstating the case although my four hours are correct at the settings I mentioned. The main holdup is the oversampling. ;) .If you switch that off, scan times are just a few minutes, as you say However, I like running my files through Photoshop and I get the impression that in some actions and plugins the files are stacked in the memory, stopping the whole PC in its tracks. :bang: I may need to upgrade my PC, as the limit for handling in PS seems to be 75 MB. That means I usually scan at 2700 DPI and end up with about 50 MB files, or scan at 5400 DPI and downsize if necessary. In prints, however, I see very little difference between both procedures. If anything, the files scanned at 5400 DPI seem to exhibit slightly more grain. I must confess I don't scan for archive purposes. I figure my slides are fine for that.
 
Last edited:
If you use any picture manipulation program on huge tiff files you need RAM, RAM and more RAM. Some more RAM may help, too :)

My "old" Dell Inspiron 8200 Notebook with a Pentium 4 Mobile 1.6 GHz Prozessor was slow as a slug with 256MB RAM with anything more advanced than MS Wordpad. Upgraded to 1024MB RAM it works like a charm.
My desktop PC works fine with 2.8GHz Pentium IV and 512 MB and a second harddisk for the windows swap file.
 
That may explain it -- my computer was slow with 400 mb files until I added more RAM. I had 1gb, now I have 3gb. The computer is a dual 2ghz G5.
 
Yeah, I went from 512 to 1 gig RAM and the times really improved using the Min 5400 and I will try getting 2 gig of RAM.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom