downstairs
downstairs
Kevin, fathers cupboard was bare. Jacob ran a duty-free lentil business.
I just didn't expect an M Leica to do arty-farty kalitype simulations from digital colour.Gimme a break. What a snob.
Saw the graph. So we are back to December 2008. Not bad.Lot more than a mess of pottage. That graph - and not nostalgia - is what determines survival. Leica did what they needed to do to survive.
What is missing then is for Leitz to get into bed with Imacon and produce a dedicated scanner. That might bring back the the lean & clean MP.
I just didn't expect an M Leica to do arty-farty kalitype simulations from digital colour.
Old albumen prints, and most printing-out processes just happen that way despite considerable time and money spent on trying to get them to come out blacker with platinum, palladium and gold. Selenium toning of bromide prints simulates a defect, not a virtue (ok ok).
You can find mock-selenium toning in any entry-level picture program - even the printing machine at the supermarket has it.
So why build it into a Leica M ? The M is a prime tool, a lean and clean machine.
Someone suggested ignoring the 'vintage' feature. I can't, I fear it is the thin end of a marketing wedge. I just hope Leica leaves well alone.
I shall have to go out and get electricians tape to hide my shame.
The M9 on-camera post-processing thing has a "Vintage B&W" setting. Why not HDR while they were at it?
I must console myself with the the idea that this feature probably kept the price down to mass-market levels.
Oh I see. Jacob just ordered the lentils online and had them Fed-Ex'd for next day delivery. This is where the bible falls flat on it's face. It just brushes over the facts . . .😛Kevin, fathers cupboard was bare. Jacob ran a duty-free lentil business.
Indeed we are. Welcome to the Leica M world. Even Leica advertises the M8 and M9 as "a purists' camera" 🙂Man, we are such purists and traditionalists.
Correct me, but I have the feeling that a 24x36 negatives is not in the same category as roll and sheet film. It does not scan well in traditional fashion with a row of leds.....But seriously, why would they want to produce a "dedicated" scanner with Leica? The Flextight scanners are quite capable of scanning 35mm.
Correct me, but I have the feeling that a 24x36 negatives is not in the same category as roll and sheet film. It does not scan well in traditional fashion with a row of leds.
I've owned a Coolscan, a 4x5 Microtech and a Flextight. They won't save the film Leicas. Nor will costly drum scans.
What about 1:1 macro onto a 24x35mm sensor with multiple exposures and piezio shift - in a box.
The technology is there. My Hasselblad back does multiple exposures with 1 pixel shift for extra definition. I don't think a dedicated Leica box with a 24x35 sensor would do too badly. But correct me.
If a "mode" like that is good enough for dSLRs, why not dRFs? If I wasn't content with shooting film, I'd actually seek out a dRF with just this feature...(singing) if I only had the bucks.Personally, if I could afford an M9, I would use the B&W jpeg mode often, perhaps more often than RAW. What better way to reproduce the experience of shooting B&W film in an old rangefinder? Leica is giving you guys precisely what you long for, and you're complaining about it.
mabelsound said:Personally, if I could afford an M9, I would use the B&W jpeg mode often, perhaps more often than RAW. What better way to reproduce the experience of shooting B&W film in an old rangefinder? Leica is giving you guys precisely what you long for, and you're complaining about it.
If a "mode" like that is good enough for dSLRs, why not dRFs? If I wasn't content with shooting film, I'd actually seek out a dRF with just this feature...(singing) if I only had the bucks.
- Barrett