Re: [Leica] digital M (what's the benefit?)

["Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>]

Kim writes:

> But what if I don't want a more accurate
> representation of reality?

Then you can either distort the digital result with Photoshop, or use some other
method of image capture--such as film--to obtain the look you want.

> I mean, that's why I use black and white.

Exactly.  And, incidentally, simply desaturating color to black and white in
Photoshop is not the same as shooting black and white film.  You can simulate
chromogenic C-41 color films pretty well this way, since their spectral response
is so close to that of color film that they look just like desaturated color
film, but for the simulation of more exotic B&W films, including tried-and-true
Tri-X or the bizarre-but-excellent Tech Pan, it just won't work.

> I mean, I like grain.  Sometimes.

You can simulate grain with surprising results in Photoshop, although I don't
really care much for grain, so I don't bother.  Tri-X grain I don't really mind,
but then again I don't really go looking for it most of the time, either.

> And what about saving all these digital shots?
> Instead of negative holders you go with billions
> of CDS that you have to update when CD moves
> to DVD and then DVD moves to EVD and EVD moves
> to FVD?

That's a non-problem, often cited in error as an argument against digital.

Digital is inherently superior to film and will eventually replace it.  However,
that does _not_ mean that today's digital cameras and workflows are superior to
film--and in fact, in most cases, they are seriously inferior to film, not
through any limitation in digital technology but through severe defects in the
implementations.  Just try out a typical consumer digicam and compare that to
your Leica M and you'll see what the problems are, and they are obvious even
before you click the shutter.  Or look at the _price tag_ of a professional
digicam with respect to the results, and you'll again see that there is a
serious problem here.