RE: [Leica] RE: Can anyone explain - i sure can't

["Peter Shier" <pshier@mindspring.com>]

As a matter of fact, I began my interest in photography using only digital
(Kodak DC290 followed by a Nikon D1) and after a while I began to realize
that the incredible beauty of Tri-X and TMAX just couldn't be had on those
whizbang machines without some major time investment in Photoshop that I was
not the least bit interested in doing. (I develop software for a living so
it wasn't due to technical intimidation).

At that point I bought a used F3 to go with all my lovely Nikon glass and a
new world opened up for me. After trying to do Leica-style candid people
shooting with the F3 and a 105/2.8 I found that only the real thing would do
and have since found true nirvana with my M6 and TMAX. (Yes I do like Tri-X
too but my current infatuation is TMAX from 100 to 6400). I am also blessed
with a superb B+W fine art lab just a few minutes from my house (Dalmatian
in Greensboro, NC).

I sold my D1 and I now have a Coolpix 990 that I use only in manual mode
instead of a Polaroid back when doing nature and portrait stuff with medium
format. It is a quick and environmentally friendly tool for checking
exposure but it certainly can't come close to the quality of film just yet.

Peter

P.S. I also have lots of vinyl and a turntable that I will never get rid of
as no digital medium has reproduced that quality yet either.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Guy Bennett
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 11:28 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] RE: Can anyone explain - i sure can't


>At some point there will be a digital camera the size of an M6 using Leica
>lenses that will be even quieter, and you will be able to hit a couple of
>buttons to request an effect called "Tri-X@3200". It won't require a
>doctorate in Photoshop to produce the print and the whole thing cost about
>1/4 of what it does today. Even though current technology is not there yet,
>it is getting pretty close. When that happens you can be sure that only
>those afflicted with acute nostalgia will stick with film.
>
>IMHO,
>Peter


peter,

what if you simply *like* film?

iyho, will it still be ok to use it?

have the non-nostalgia smitten among us already all switched to (digital?)
ae af systems, do they only use zoom lenses, do they only drive electric
cars, shave only with electric shavers, cook their food only in microwaves,
write (should they still be so inclined) with mechanical pencils,
correspond uniquely by email, etc. so forth and so on?

does the march of technology resound with stomping of jackboots on gray
slate or will the futuristically impaired still be allowed to wear sneakers
(with or without socks)?

guy