Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/09/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 9/15/03 11:09:16 AM, abridge@mac.com writes: << You know, if the E-1 or other digital people are going to be convincing then you're going to have to shoot the same scene with film and the E-1 at nearly the same time. How much subtle detail was lost that film would have captured in the cloud and especially in the dark building in the foreground of this image. If we're REALLY going to understand digital, film, and the advantages/disadvantages of each then we need to challenge each equally. >> - --------------------------------------------------- A valid point. Something we must consider. Digital is more of a radical transformation of information than is film. I know of no way to deal with this problem than to just tell the viewer which of the two visual formats we've used. Then let the viewer decide whether that distinction makes a difference to him or her. I agree with Adam, this isn't by way of being critical of digital. Speaking only for myself, I've decided to use digital when I need an image quickly, a negative isn't necessary, and for social occasions or education, in which that little preview picture or its TV display is part of the good fellowship and entertainment. That can be more often that I thought, I'm beginning to realize. Ultimately, which format we use is up to us; it's not the decision of the viewer or client. So it's an elitist decision, just as are the ethics, the equipment and materials of a doctor or dentist or cabinet maker or engineer chooses. The public is only indirectly concerned. It's only when something goes wrong that we're called on the carpet. In any case, those are my personal guidelines. br - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html