Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/02/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] IMG: Modern Services, Old Presentation
From: drodgers at casefarms.com (David Rodgers)
Date: Mon Feb 2 08:05:05 2009

Daniel: 

>>When it comes to color images, I wouldn't touch film.
So I'm not totally hung up on film. But when it comes to b/w ...
digital doesn't do it for me.<<

You're not alone. It's digital color and film BW for me, too. I cross
over a little, though. I tried Ektar 100 in an M6 and I really like it.
I'd shoot it more but the only lab that I still trust for processing is
70 miles away. 

That makes color film really inconvenient! Still film differs from
digital enough that I will occasionally tolerate the inconvenience. I
can't explain how it's different. It just is. 

Whether or not equipment really matters is a photographic paradox that
I've struggled to understand for as long as I can remember. Since most
of the time it's hard to tell from an image what equipment was used the
answer is no. But for some reason it matters to me, so the answer is
yet. 

Most people who see my BW prints can't tell Rolleiflex from M6 (even if
they're uncropped :-) ). Nor do they care. Same with color film vs
digital.

Years ago I was taught that the final image is the only thing that
matters. But that never quite settled in with me. Two of my photographs
can look identical. Yet it matters to me how they were made. It probably
shouldn't, but it does. 

DaveR   




In reply to: Message from dlridings at gmail.com (Daniel Ridings) ([Leica] IMG: Modern Services, Old Presentation)