Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi rich, > One problem for photographers with either bulk loading > or digital, is to keep attention on composing the best in > the viewfinder, rather than just banging away because > 'I've got lots and it's cheep, maybe something will work' > Because more often, my 'keepers' are the ones when > I took the extra step to consider the shot. I would think serious photographers, even when using free film, do take the extra step. If I gave you a free roll of film, would you should shoot sloppily just because it's free ? Does a serious writer write more sloppily just because paper and ink is cheap ? Wouldn't there be fewer good books if writers have to watch their paper and ink budget ? That said, I do appreciate though that while cheap film makes for better photographs, it makes a whole lot more of bad photographs, just because there are proportionately more of those. Same with books. Anyway, my point is that the main benefit of digital for me is not so much in the number of shots, but the number of "shoot-edit-learn from mistake-shoot again" cycles offered by the fast digital workflow. It's ironic that I should be such a digital apologist at the moment, as I am trying to set up a workflow to produce 11x14 and 13x19 B&W prints, probably with Tri X. Let me put it this way. IF (big IF) I have a way to produce high quality scans from film as fast as I can with digital, at about the same quality and cost, I will throw away my digital camera. Not so much because film is higher quality than digital which it still is in some situations, but because I am at this point in time still better at producing images to my liking with film than with digital. But that's changing very fast. Cheers, - - Phong - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html