Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well, B. D. you have a point. Even though you seem to be making it with all the triumphalism of a fundamentalist on November 3. :-) --- No, Peter - I just get really tired of hearing the "passing fad" nonsense. As I've said repeatedly, if digital disappeared tomorrow, no one would be happier than I would - well, I guess the Kodak and Fuji brass would be even happier. But I really do gag reading the nonsense. ----- But I wonder if the P&S user will truly get as much of a cost benefit as they think. They have to buy a camera, printer, paper, and expensive ink that dries out if not used regularly. And unless they learn at least some photo editing, they will still be plagued with red-eye, pictures with excessive contrast, washed-out highlights (including those precious flash pictures of Grandma and Junior), etc. ---- They had the same problems with their film p&ses...washed out highlights, red eye, etc. And it was the rare lab that wasn't staffed with kids who didn't give a rat's behind what kind of results they returned to customers. ----- Will they care? I suspect some will, and might still use film for important occasions. Enough to matter? Who knows? People's taste seems very moldable by the marketeers. The word "digital" has been made into a synonym for "better." If perception is reality, we're in trouble. ------ I don't think it's been made into a synonym for better - rather it's been made into a synonym for 'faster,' or 'instant,' just like 'Polaroid..' ----- Now, how about the reasonbly knowledgeable amateur who owns a working film SLR? They already have the camera. A P&S digital won't give them the same image quality that their SLR did. To buy a DSLR or even a high-end digicam is expensive. Film may still make sense if they only shoot a few rolls a year. ------ True...They may well decide to stick with film. But my guess is that they already have a Nikon or Canon SLR, and will spring for an N70 or Rebel body, and will use the lenses they already have. ------ Even for a amateur with semi-pro-level knowledge, the cost issue is complex. I worked out that at the rate I shoot film (2-3 dozen rolls a year), it would take me about 3 years for my new E-1 to pay for itself (yes, folks, I just took the plunge and bought an Olympus E-1). I will probably shoot more with digital, since it "doesn't cost anything." And as you say, I will learn more. But the cost savings will be in pictures I wouldn't have shot if I hadn't gotten a DSLR. ------ It's true it may take three years if you don't shoot more. But if you shoot more, in a sense it will pay for itself faster. (I realize that's a bit specious, but what the hell) ------- I didn't buy a DSLR to save money. I bought it because I want to eliminate the time and hassle of scanning from pictures where digital will be just as good for the intended purpose. I have many pictures that I think are good, but I've never scanned. I ran out of time, I got tired. Then I shot another roll, the previous one went into the storage box, and who knows if I'll ever get to it again? With digital, there's less "stuff" between me and a finished picture. -----True But I don't doubt for a minute that I will continue to shoot film. Even the E-1 feels big and clunky compared to a Leica M. I can't take it everywhere, all the time. The "look" is not the same as film. The dynamic range is a lot less than negative film, and if you err on the side of overexposure, bye-bye shot. ---- I'd suggest that while the dynamic range is limited on the high end, it is greater on the 'low end.' It sure looks to me as though I am getting more shadow detail than I was with tri-x. And I know that I do better shooting digital in low light than I did shooting film, ------ There are a lot of places in the world where film is still viable as a mass market (Anywhere in the Third World, for example). And there may be enough diehards to keep it alive even here, once the digital sales curve peaks. The question is whether the "death of film" will be a self-fulfulling prophecy, brought on by marketeer's hype and "American business' ostrich-like obsession with the quarterly profit at the expensse ofthe long view." Or whether Kodak will keep selling film as long as we will buy it. I suspect Fuji will. As will some enterprising souls in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. ---- Yes, film will be around for a long time in one way or another. But I am a bit puzzled by your reference to "American business' ostrich-like obsession with the quarterly profit at the expenses of the long view." Business, Peter, is about making money, not about preserving the past. What 'long view?' Things change. As long as there's a market for film that allows manufacturers to make the return their stockholders demand, there will be film. After that there may be Mom and Pop film businesses. But why would we expect manufacturers to continue to produce film if they can't make money on it? Have no fear, however, as the market will be there for many years to come. --------- I agree that the market will shake out, and there will be less film and processing available. The question is how fast will it happen, and how much. Those of us in or near major cities will probably be OK. Those elsewhere may not be. So far it's happened faster than most of us would have believed. But there might be a plateau rather than a continued acceleration to zero. ----- I don't think you're going to see a plateau until we're down around 5 or 10 - on a scale of 100. But there really is no reason to expect a plateau sooner. Digital cameras, storage media, printers, etc., are getting less expensive and better with every passing year, if not every six months. ------- --Peter _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information