RE: [Leica] OT: The endless nonsense about film vs. digital (long rant)

[rodgersd@fosterfarms.com]

Martin, 

>>Like most areas of technology, what drives development is economy.<<  

I enjoyed reading your post. Very thought provoking and anything but
nonsense. Certainly anyone involved in photogrpahy today has a decision
regarding when to use what tools, and why.  

Speaking for now of b/w only, I can't get past the feeling that conventional
photography has more value than digital photography. I'm going to step out
on a limb and say that it's not about the appearance of an image. I think
the "appearance is all that matters" argument is flawed.  A perfect
reproduction of a Monet isn't worth as much as the original, even though it
may look identical to all but a handful of experts. (Maybe that's a reach of
an analogy, but it's food for thought). I think the main reason a lot of
people have a low opinion of Ansel Adams' works is that they're sick of
seeing cheap reproductions hanging in every poster shop in the country. 

Maybe low cost and ease of production aren't neccessarily good things.
Digital is good for "here-today-gone-tomorrow photography". But film and
chemical printing is still the best choice for longevity and lasting value.
I wish it were otherwise, because working at my computer is more fun than
spending hours in the darkroom. And I don't smell like fixer when I'm done
making Piezotone prints. 

High quality silver prints have value because conventional b/w printing is
extremely difficult to do well. Lugger Mark Rabiner, btw, is one of the best
b/w printers I've ever seen. He's an absolute magician in the darkroom. 

DaveR            

 
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html