Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Juan Gea-Banacloche offered: > I would not recommend a film camera to anyone interested in photography > today; I would recommend digital.<< Jaun my friend, How can you say that and sleep at night? As it's absolute blasphemy!!!!!!!!!! Why would you do that! It generally takes a tiny amount of intelligence to use most idiot proof digital machines these days and getting easier. They don't really teach anyone anything about being a photographer nor capturing the moment as we who are photographers understand it as being a photographer or photograph! Hell an exposer of electrons or whatever the hell they're called in a digital camera can almost be done by a blind person. And yes there are film cameras that can be set for auto everything that can do the same thing. However! A Leica R/F teaches one to "see" when they are "looking" and that's the difference between digital and Leica! A Leica teaches you to see as a photographer! A digital? Hell just point it, press button "A" image recorded with no sight at all! Sort it out later! > I practice film photography as a hobby and I see it, as someone else > has mentioned, as a thing of the past. If one wants to "paint with > light", digital is the way to start.<<<<<<<, Well me young / old son that's baloney! Hell if I didn't learn what light was all about long before digital was ever thought of, let alone as a tiny dinkie toy for recording. I'd never have had the career I've enjoyed for 50 years! And just what makes you think digital would teach someone, anyone, about "painting with light" over a Leica? Or what light is all about in the first place? > I bought my first Leica (a Leicaflex SL) in 2002; the M3 last year.<<<<<, Well gee whiz eh! How about buying your first Leica 40 years ago and still shooting in the hectic world of these days while producing internationally recognized books? I think maybe when you are dry behind the ears you could come to the table and make recommendations whether one should start digital over a Leica and film! Certainly when it comes to learning what light is all about! > Again, photography for me is something I enjoy, not a craft, nor a job (if it > were, I might think Leica is the right tool for something, but I > honestly don't know what).<<<<<<<<< You truly are a neophyte aren't you! > I just enjoy the whole process of shooting and developing > but it is frustrating to ruin the negatives or find out you have two > keepers out of 36. I don't pretend it makes sense. If one enjoys it > (and it does not hurt anybody) it should be OK.<<<<<<< I suppose, but screwing-up negatives goes with the territory of being a photographer, pardon me even a professional. Hell on an assignment of shooting say, 500 hundred rolls of 36 it's nice to have 10% as the main keepers. Considered normal averages within the profession. That doesn't mean the others are throw aways, it means on average 10% are the best and within the 10% one hopes to find a few absolute diamonds for the project. So don't be frustrated with ruining a few negatives here and there as it's all part of the learning curve. > Leica film photography may be on its way to become something like Minox > photography: an oddity.<< Not on your life! Can I prove that? Not on your life! ;-) But sometimes a tool of such greatness, the M series of bodies, with the feel of a finely made piece of equipment has followers who will forever look for it and use it with great reverence, simply because of it's involvement with some of the finest moments in photography history. Did the camera make the photograph? Naw, we all know the guy or gal holding it did. But over the years the end photo product has been equated to "this is a Leica picture!" ERGO: There are always going to be Leica users as long as there is film to fill them! ted Grant