RE: [Leica] Is digital photography necrophilia?

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

In response to Dante's anti-digital diatribe -

Sorry, Dante, but this is precisely what you've labled it - a rant, and
like most rants it is far more a rhetorical exercise than a rational
discussion of an important topic.

Part I - 
	1. Do you seriously suggest most photo journalists went to, let
us say Gulf War I with a couple of "Leicas and what not?" More like two
to four Nikon F4s or 5s - perhaps F3s, all with motors, and a huge bag
of lenses. No, no sat phone, and no laptop. But what that sat phone and
lap top have done is make possible timely transmission of the photos
back to "the world." And given that the photojournalists are over there
as journalists, and their job is to cover news, being able to get their
work back quickly represents an enormous advance;
	2. Yes, images can be stolen from the web - but first off, most
posted images are posted at low resolutions; and, second, one can
easilly turn those images into digital "proofs" that are pretty much
useless to thieves in terms of reselling them. Oh, and let's not forget
that people have been posting and transmitting scanned film images for
quite some time now;
	3. This cant about shifting the "burden" onto the amature gets
really tiresome - the amature can take his filled digital card to the
corner store for 4x6s prints that are about the same cost, and every bit
as good, as those he got from film - but he doesn't have to pay for film
or processing. Oh, I guess that means it saves him money, doesn't it?

Part II-
	1. See 3 above. And, if the amature wants to do his own post
shoot work at home, he can, without having to develop film, and without
a dark room, or having to constantly convert his kitchen or bathroom
into a darkroom;
	2. The gear is still useable; the gear is just as good. But yet,
the excellent Canon 50 1.4 becomes an excellent 75 1.4, the 24 1.4
becomes a 35 1.4, the 35 1.4 becomes - a 50 1.4 - and what's your
problem. Times change; equipment changes. So what? No one is forcing you
or anyone else to change.
	3. I don't recall anyone making smaller, cheaper or faster
lenses a "promise" of digital. But some manufacturers are starting to do
it. We are only a few short years into this revolution. People, and I'm
sure you were one of them after reading your rant, were saying just six
months or a year ago that we wouldn't be nearly as far along as we
already are - I find it absolutely fascinating and very revelatory that
where not much more than six months ago the very word "digital" was
anethema on the LUG, even Ted Grant is now playing with a digital
camera, Tina Manley is earning her living with digitals, and many LUGers
are shooting with them as well as with their Leicas. Some people are
apparently able to adapt to change; some people see changes as an
impetus to grow- others don't.
      4. Yes, there are times that it's better to downsample than it is
to interpolate, but the same holds true of shooting with film. (And by
the way, digital noise is essentially the same thing as grain - but
we're used to the look of grain in high speed images, while we're not
used to noise. 

Part IV -
	Yes, digital is indeed an imature technology; just as film was
when it replaced glass plates. The Kodak you extoll in Part I was
introduced in, what, 1887 (give or take a few years?) and I seem to
recall the first Leica didn't come along for another 40 years. The first
Leica was, if we can be honest, a real piece of crap compared to even
the later screw mounts. And the lenses Leica made in the 1940s and early
50s a real optical jokes compared to today's M lenses. (By the way, did
film technology and film cameras evolve as they did as a giant scheme by
camera companies to introduce planned obsolesence and rob us blind?
There is just as much reason to suggest that as there is for you to, in
effect, suggest that that is what's driving digital.

	Yes, Dante, we will have to wait and see how digital evolves.
Certainly it has a long way to go - it's only in its infancy now. But I
guarantee you it will only get better with every passing year. If people
had reacted to the introduction of film the way you are reacting to
digital, you would never have had your holy Leicas to shoot with. ;-) B.
D. Responding, not ranting.



    

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Jerry
Lehrer
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:29 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Is digital photography necrophilia?


> <Digital diatribe>
>
> 1.      The true nature of the paradigm shift
>
> In the old days, your PJ could wander around with his Leicas and 
> whatnot.  A couple of years ago, American Photo did a layout of the 
> absolutely massive amount of equipment people were taking to Iraq - it

> was something like two D1xs, battery chargers, inverters, microdrives,

> laptop computers, and full chemical gear.  That makes an F3 with MD-4 
> look like a positive flyweight.  

> In the amateur world, digital shifts the burdens of processing onto 
> the hobbyist who just doesn't have time to belt out 36 4x6 prints at a

> shot, starting with downloading, resizing, sharpening (once reserved 
> for lousy film scanners and out of focus shots but now de rigeur) and 
> so forth.  Digital doesn't make it cost any less,
>
> 2.      The broken promises of digital
>
> In the old days - and at least as late as my childhood, manufacturers 
> have always tried to make rank amateur formats easier.  The original 
> Kodak could not be opened by the end user.  The brownie format (120) 
> came about to help eliminate the need to deal with plates.  Then 126, 
> 110, Disc, APS - well, you get the picture.  35mm film is rapidly 
> losing adherents in new cameras, but is it because its sales spiked 
> when they figured out how to make idiot-proof 35mm point and shoots?
>
>
> Then the empty promise of smaller, faster cheaper lenses.  Where?  A 
> 12-24mm Nikkor is one stop slower than an 20-35/2.8, not that much 
> smaller, and not much cheaper (is it even?).  And some DX lenses are 
> now sporting absolutely massive 77mm filter threads.  Not that cameras

> are getting any smaller.

>

>
> 
>
> 4.      Why digital?
>
> Manuacturers need planned obsolescence to keep things moving.  TTL 
> metering, autowinding, and ultimately autofocus drove an upgrade path 
> in SLRs.  When the Nikon F5 came out (as well as its Canon 
> counterpart), there were simply no worlds left to conquer.  Film SLRs 
> from the 1970s were overbuilt quality-wise and still in service for 
> those who didn't want AF, and there was nothing new to sell people who

> were into AF.  By contrast, digital is an immature technology with 
> plenty of room for improvements in sensors. 

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