Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/03/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I respectfully reply "nonsense." Right off let's understand the words "need" and "desire" have different meanings. There is nothing that can be done with digital that cannot be done with film. No need was filled that had not been filled before. None. I know from personal observation that the drift from film to digital had nothing to do with need and everything to do with fear. Fear that a competitor would find a way to use digital to gain an advantage, or at least a perceived advantage. Methods of working have changed not because of need but because of fear that retaining the older work method would be thought old fashioned and unhip. And somehow, someway, revenue would be lost because of it. The only other influence I've seen in agencies are gadget lovers who pined for new toys until they got them. I am not saying that digital is not the wave of the near future. It is. But at the moment the choice to use digital is one of whim, not of need. BTW, quality is not an issue. News images are used online or printed coursely on paper. Whether the image is hi-rez or not will never be noticed by the viewer. Sam S Frank Dernie wrote: > ? a real need! Most news photographers find it fills a real need now. > Most Sports photographers do as well. There are a few I know who still > use film for ultimate quality but the difference in real world > situations is very small between current digital and 35mm. The only > people for whom film is still the best choice is the smallish number > of fine art and landscape photographers using large and medium format. > In studios even they are moving to (ludicrously expensive IMO) digital > solutions. > There are a small band of hobbyists who still use film - I am one of > them - but many I talk to are only convinced by theoretical benefits > of film over digital, they have never tried comparing for themselves. > I know exactly under what circumstances I will use digital or film > now, by my own experience and experiments. FWIW on my experiments the > film is critical, on Kodachrome with a Leica and tripod there is clear > superiority over DSLR results. Handheld the differences are smaller. > Using 200 asa print film changes the results - digital is always better. > For ultimate quality I still use medium format. I only use 35mm film > for fun now. For hand held walking about type photography digital is > as good and much more convenient. I wait with impatience for the > digital rangefinder which takes my Leica lenses, then I will have the > best of both worlds - a digital camera which is fun to use! > Frank > > > > On Friday, March 12, 2004, at 12:52 am, Sam wrote: > >> A time will come when digital cameras will serve a real need, but >> that time is not yet. I agree, 8 bits led to much greater, and >> useful, computers. My point is that there is a space between >> conception and realisation that is ripe for fad and novelty. We are >> going through it now. Now really, does it make sense for people who >> shoot 20 or 30 frames a week to talk about "work flow"??? >> >> Sam S >> >> >> Dan C wrote: >> >>> The 8-bit home computers led directly to the multi giga-hertz 32 bit >>> ( and >>> soon to become 64 bit) home computers that we have today. Pac Man >>> led to >>> the incredably complex games available today, along with software >>> such as >>> Photoshop. They didn't lead back towards abacii or slide rules. Nor >>> will film cameras make a comeback among the people who benefit from >>> them >>> (and this includes both pros and the happy snapper amateur). >>> >>> At 06:29 PM 11-03-04 -0500, Sam wrote: >>> >>>> No, I'm saying we are going through a period in which just about >>>> everyone believes they need a digital camera, and if they had one >>>> so many things would be done better. Even those people who are >>>> forced to use digital because it's been imposed on them by bosses >>>> are merely being compelled by the forces of whim. If getting more >>>> pictures faster is important to a news outlet (for example), why >>>> the hell is the news 85% nonessential garbage? Are there any signs >>>> that digital has improved anything? None. To the vast majority it's >>>> a novelty made to appear like a need. It's much like when the first >>>> 8 bit home computers became available. How much serious work was >>>> done on Atari 800s and Commodore 64s? Not much, but they were made >>>> to sound as if your whole life would be dramatically changed. >>>> Instead of dramatic change we got Pac Man. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > > -- > 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