RE: Vs: [Leica] Digital vs Film

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

Steven,

> I don't understand;
>  > snaps to the local drug store, and get double set of prints from them,
> easy.
> >> I can bring my digital film cartridge
> to...well...to...somewhere (yet to be
> >> disclosed) and get....hum.
> >>
>
> The other day I was in a photo shop, Anderson in Concord, MA, and on the
> counter was a gadget that took any digital media found in consumer cameras
> and a screen.  Select your images and just like film your prints
> will appear
> the next day in envelopes as 2x3,4x6 or larger, singles or multi  on photo
> paper.  This type service is not in all shops yet; however, the processing
> counter is the profit center for a retail shop and as film revenue drop
> these new processing/profit centers will become more available and in many
> forms.

Sigh.  I said these exist, AND they aren't everywhere, not near everywhere,
and I also said they eventually will be.  But the fact is, they aren't now.
What's hard to understand about that?

> And I do not understand your time thing at all. Film you need to: Set-up
> chemicals, process, wait to dry, then print (either
> digital[scan/photoshop]
> or chemically, set up chemicals, enlarge, process, dry, spot or take it to
> processing place and pick up later.

Why do I need to do all that when I can just drop the film off at the drug
store counter, and get back a double set of prints for $14?  Taking it to
the "processing place" and picking it up later is hardly a time issue,
unless you never leave the house!  Spending the time printing each one you
want is FAR more time consuming than dropping the film off at the drug
store, and if you take the trip TO the store (twice) to print out your
digital images, then where is the time saved?  You still have to make the
same trip you would have to make with film.

I have both digital and film cameras.  I find film wins hands down for happy
snaps (time and quality wise, and I get chemical prints back), for B&W
(quality wise, and I print those my self digitally) and for contemplative
work (again, quality wise, and I print them my self digitally).  I find
digital wins for web pictures.

I also want to make it clear there are two digital categories, one scanned
film, and second, digital as image source.  The are very different.

> Digital you can transfer information to small 2x3 digital printer
> and print,
> you can transfer to computer and with photoshop/print or use some form of
> onsite service center for digital image processing.
>
> Time is on the digital side and convenience will be soon also.

You really call that "convenient" (and you would settle for 2x3 prints???)?
It takes time to use PS and to print, stock supplies, deal with printer
banding etc.  It is FAR FAR FAR more convenient for mom or dad to take that
roll of film to the drug store and get double prints for $14.

> What really counts is the effectiveness of the
> communication...not the tool.

Not for most people.  It's the convenience.  Until digital becomes more
convenient, which it is not for most people, film will still be the primary
media.  Also, what about after your little "digital film" card is filled up?
What do you do with the images then?  You need a digital storage device to
transfer them to...either a computer, or one of these new digital storage
devices ;-).  What about when your digital storage device fills up?

It's a fact that digital "works" for some people, and does not for others.
What I find SIMPLY amazing, that this is a Leica list...and has primarily
people who have multi thousand dollar 35mm Leica cameras, with lenses that
can't be beat...but now some of you seem to want to settle for FAR inferior
images than your 35mm Leica can give you...why?  Why on earth were you even
using a Leica in the first place when obviously a lesser P&S would have
sufficed, if this is all the image quality you are looking for?

Regards,

Austin

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