Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/09

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] going digital WAS full time photogs
From: "Ginex, Mike" <mginex@panynj.gov>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:34:48 -0400

Comparing digitial to film to me is not far different from comparing
traditional music to electronic. I and many of my pro musician colleagues,
smyted by it's obvious victory, contend that electronic music has more or
less replaced us in all but a few corners of the industry. Television,
radio, film, recording and every other medium of entertainment (even
Broadway Shows) has been effected by the new technology. However, we are all
in agreement that there has been in the process a tremendous watering down
of quality by traditional standards, no matter how advanced the technology
has grown. But we are faced with the dilemma besieging all artists, the fact
that the average person doesn't give a damn. And with good reason...they
can't hear the difference.
I accept digital as another format for taking a picture. The average person
will not be able to discern any difference between it and film. I also think
that it can be included in the world of art along with the painting mediums
and graphic art. All mediums have their place in the world of art. 
I think music is the art of capturing the essences of life in sound, using
knowledge of the science of music and your own creative mastery. Substitute
music with photography and sound with film and you see what I'm trying to
say here.
Anyway, it's a slow day here at the office and I figured it would be a good
time to get it off my chest. Hope I didn't bend any tin ears! ;-)

Mike Ginex

 
- -----Original Message-----
From: John Brownlow [mailto:lists@johnbrownlow.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 9:17 AM
To: Leica Users digest
Subject: Re: [Leica] going digital WAS full time photogs


On 4/8/02 11:23 PM, "John Collier" <jbcollier@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Why bother switching if what you are using works? It is the resulting
> images that count, not the process(es) to make them. I plan on using
> Tri-X for a long time as it works for me too.

The thing is that digital can be better. I know this sounds like heresy, but
even the pictures from a CoolPix 5000 can have a quality to them that film
cannot achieve. This is particularly true in color in marginal or low light.
Moreover, at print sizes up to about 8x10 in this camera the images look
remarkably like large format. Photographers do not turn to digital merely
out of convenience or expedience but because it some respects it represents
a genuine extension of the tools available to us.

However as Tina says don't take them out in the rain.

- -- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

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

Replies: Reply from David Young <youngs@islandnet.com> ([Leica] Re: going digital WAS full time photogs)
Reply from S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] going digital WAS full time photogs)