Re: [Leica] Film is not dead!

[Peter Klein <pklein@2alpha.net>]

At 05:12 PM 12/18/03 -0800, gregj.lorenzo@shaw.ca wrote:
>Nice to read a projection on the "future of film" on this forum from a 
>source that **actually knows** what it is talking about for once!
>
>I, for one, am rather tired of reading the inane pronouncments of some who 
>once a week or so put on their pointy caps and moon and star emblazoned 
>suits, roll a handful of chicken bones and declare "film is dead, caw, 
>caw, the sky is falling caw, caw"!

 > 
http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=5&article_id=766&page_number=1&preview= 

 > 
http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?article_id=766&section_id=5&page_number=9

Hi, Greg!  I was happy to read it, too.  We have all been subject to an 
awful lot of prosedigitalytization lately.  Some of it is real--digital has 
some wonderful benefits, especially in terms of speed, instant feedback, 
volume, tweakability, smoothness (in DSLRs, anyway) and lack of cost of 
"consumables."  For many sports and spot news photographers, and for 
catalog photography, digital is the only economical way to go. For 
snapshooters, it's good enough.

But a lot of what we hear is hype designed to convince the lemming 
consumers that they will not be whole 21st century human beings if they 
don't chuck all those antique film cameras and go 100% digital RIGHT 
NOW!  In this respect "digital" joins things like cell phones, PDAs, fax 
machines, PCs, Cabbage Patch dolls, hula hoops and oat bran as Stuff That 
All With-It People Gotta Have.

Then there's the "I'm superior to, or cooler than thou" phenomenon.  It's 
mostly espoused by:

1. Computer geeks who believe that anything in regular production is 
already "legacy."
2. Free market fundamentalists who delight in comparing the makers of film 
to the manufacturers of buggy whips in 1905.

(Reminder to self: I have Orson Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons" on 
tape, gotta watch it sometime).

The Japanese manufacturers' livelihood depends on riding these trends 
correctly.  It's interesting to read their predictions that film's sales 
decline will level off soon, as will digital's steep rise.  And that while 
there's going to be an awful lot of digital around, there will still be 
enough of a film market that they are going to keep designing and producing 
new medium and high-end film cameras.

Also interesting to see the difference between Canon and Nikon's take on 
sensor size and lenses designed specifically for digital.

Anyway, I suspect that we will all be able to find film for quite a 
while.  And if Kodak bags it, Fuji will be happy to take up the 
slack.  While I love Tri-X and Supra, Neopan 400 and Fuji Press ain't bad, 
either.

The digital camera I really want isn't made yet.  What comes close is 
either too big and heavy, too expensive, too clunky to shoot Leica-style 
and fast, or not good enough in image quality. I'm eying that Panasonic 
DC1, with a Leica lens but without the red dot. It might be the one.  Or 
not.  We'll see.  Olympus did pretty good quality with a 2/3 sensor in the 
E-10 and E-20.  Maybe Panaleica will, too.

In the meantime, I'm happy to play with with my used, cheaply-bought 
Coolpix. And shoot my Leicas for anything serious.  You can buy an awful 
lot of Tri-X for the cost of any DSR that does low-light anywhere near as 
well.  And if you want dynamic range, negative film is still where it's at.

Now, if someone would only invent film that scans itself while I sleep, and 
presents me with dustless TIFFs in the morning. . .

- --Peter Klein
Seattle

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