Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Why you "waste" 6X6 slide film on furry felines is beyond me, B.D. Think of how much easier and cheaper it would have been in digital - delete, delete, delete. ;-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:05 AM Subject: RE: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron > And Seth - I think you are absolutely right about the New Zealand story > - that has the ring of "urban digital legend" to it. ;-) > > And I just returned to the keyboard having wasted 10 minutes wasting two > frames of 2 1/4 slide film on one of our cats... :-) > > Best > B. D. > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > Seth Rosner > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 10:50 AM > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron > > > B.D. > > I don't think I disagree with one thing you wrote. Except that I suspect > > that the LHSA member who couldn't find film in New Zealand had an agenda > or > was looking for film in the wilderness. I simply do not believe that one > > cannot find film to buy in N.Z. > > Seth > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> > To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 10:16 AM > Subject: RE: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron > > >> Hi, Seth - I have said many times that I suspect there will be film >> around during our life-times. The fact that Kodak and Fuji will >> continue to manufacture film is hardly surprising, given the number of > >> film cameras out there. >> >> Far more telling however - and even I find it astonishing - is your >> friend's experience. That is the reality. >> >> Beyond that, digital appeals top far more than editors and P&S >> throw-away freaks. In fact, many editors have been resisting digital - > >> particularly magazine editors. Digital doesn't appeal to people >> because it symbolizes anything - it appeals to people because it gives > >> the overwhelming majority as good or better results than they got with > >> film, cheaper and faster than they got those film results. You seem to > >> forget that most people don't shoot 25 iso slide film with Leica Ms >> using the latest aspheric lenses - they shoot with disposable film >> cameras (speaking of throw-away) and with point-and-shoots costing >> less than $100. >> >> The real digital story is that digital delivers on the >> never-quite-fulfilled promise of Polaroid - it's true instant >> photography. And, as I mentioned in my response to Mark Rabiner, with >> the arrival of the new Epson, Canon - and I just saw an ad in this >> morning's paper for a similar product from Dell - people are being >> offered their own 4x6 'labs' for about $150! If you're not a >> Leicaphile, or someone who has a real need for film, or an artistic >> interest in it, why would you want film when you can have a $150 >> appliance at home that for $.29 a print cranks out 4x6s every bit as >> good or better than the 4x6s you got at the corner lab - that were >> often pretty crappy, dust covered, and scratched? >> >> As to shooting film and scanning - which I did for about five years, >> yes, it's a great way to go if you want to shoot film. I still do it >> on occasion, and I'm sure I will continue to do it for some time to >> come. It does not, however, offer many of the benefits of digital that > >> go beyond cost and speed - but those sure are huge, important benefits > >> of digital. >> >> I think that those of you for whom money is less of a concern than it >> is for most people greatly underestimate the importance of cost in >> this film-digital equation. I shoot professionally, but when it comes >> to my personal shooting, cost is an enormous part of the equation; I >> have to think about my son's college tuition, and all my other >> expenses, when I shoot for myself. And digital allows me to totally >> ignore the cost part of photography - I can carry a camera with me all > >> the time and shoot my brains out - without spending a penny. I am >> definitely shooting more now that I am shooting digital than I was >> shooting when I was primarily using film. And the more I shoot for >> myself, the better my photography for clients gets - and the more my >> digital bw work looks like my film bw work. ;-) >> >> Yes, Seth, film will be around as long as we will - but with every >> passing year it will become more and more exotic and, I suspect, more >> expensive. Just as the price of digital storage and printing is >> dropping, and will continue to drop up to a certain point, so the cost > >> of film and processing it will continue to rise. >> >> If you like film, shoot it. Enjoy it. Revel in it. But don't allow >> your personal enjoyment to keep you from seeing the reality that we >> are living through one of those major moments in the technical history > >> of photography in which the medium of photography moves from one form >> of image capture and storage to another. >> >> B. D. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org >> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf >> Of Seth Rosner >> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:39 AM >> To: Leica Users Group >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron >> >> >> Hi B.D.: >> >> At the LHSA Leica Akademie meeting last week, I sat next to a member >> who >> >> said that in New Zealand recently, he couldn't find a place to buy >> film and had to buy a cheap digital to record his trip; added that >> film would be dead >> in two years. >> >> The following day Karen Sweet, Kodak representative, gave a >> power-point presentation on Kodak's doings in imaging, both film and >> digital. An astonishing array of world-class digital products and an >> equally astonishing array of up-dated old and brand new professional >> film emulsions, in 35mm and >> other formats. During her talk and the ensuing q&a I could not help >> thinking >> of you. >> >> Take a look at the Kodak website for their film palette. Then talk >> about >> >> film's demise. >> >> It is clear that professionals and editors to whom speed and ease of >> transmission is critical are working, perhaps close to exclusively, in > >> digital. Equally clear that a majority of p&s consumers in the west >> will >> >> choose digital for its ease and cheapness, and because it almost >> symbolizes the disposable, throw-away world we live in. >> >> IMHO, Ted's current methodology is the very best combination of >> quality and >> ease: film capture, then scan, edit and print digitally. >> >> My strong bet: neither Kodak nor Fuji will leave the film business in >> our lifetimes. >> >> Seth LaK 9 >> >> Had a wonderful time; wish you were her. ;-) >> >> Seth LaK 9 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> >> To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org> >> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 10:48 PM >> Subject: RE: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron >> >> >>> First off, Marc, while I like the E-1, I wouldn't lose a nanosecond's > >>> sleep if digital turned out to be the passing fancy, or whatever it >>> is >> >>> some of you seem to believe it is. I love film, love my Ms. Just like > >>> the people who loved their daguerreotypes loved those plates, and >>> just >> >>> like the speed graphic shooters loved their film holders. >>> >>> But as much as I hate to burst your bubble, film is indeed dying. >>> Tell >> >>> the folks at Ilford and Kodak that film isn't dying. Of course there >>> are sixteen trillion film cameras out there. But that has nothing to >>> do with whether film is dying. I'm sure you'll go on shooting film >>> until the day you die, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the >>> previous capture medium. The question isn't how many film cameras >>> still exist, the important question is - at what rate is the number >>> of >> >>> digital cameras increasing every six months, and how does that >>> compare >> >>> to the number of film cameras being sold? >>> >>> As to the Nikon F6 - Yes indeed, it is due out - and I will place >>> money on the fact that Nikon will, within 12 months of the >>> introduction of the F6, announce a digital back for it - probably a >>> full-frame digital back as they don't have one yet. No major camera >>> company - other than Leica - will introduce a pro film camera that is > >>> not also a digital camera. For Gds sake, Nikon F5s and Canon EOS1ns >>> are being virtually given away these days. >>> >>> Another sign of the ascendency of digital is the printers that Epson >>> and Canon are now churning out for the home market that crank out >>> 4x6s >> >>> at apx .$29 a piece - just pop in your CF card, or hook up your >>> camera, and print away - no computer necessary, no knowledge of >>> photoshop necessary. Your own "60 minute" photolab in on your own >>> kitchen table. >>> >>> Yes, the reality is that film is now the domain of hobbiests, a small > >>> number of documentary photographers and some art photographers. Kids >>> aren't buying film point and shoots now Mark - they're buying digital > >>> P&Ss and camera cell phones. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org >>> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf >>> Of Mark Rabiner >>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 9:24 PM >>> To: Leica Users Group >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron >>> >>> >>> On 11/8/04 3:52 PM, "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> typed: >>> >>>> That used to be the beauty, Vic. But alas, with the dying of film, >>>> it >> >>>> is no longer true. While Leica equipment may hold its value better >>>> than most film equipment, it is no longer holding it the way it did >>>> even a year ago. M6 TTLs purchased for $1995 were selling for about >>>> $1450 in near mint condition - now they're down to about $1150 - if >>>> you're lucky- and used M7s, which are now selling for, what, around >>>> $2800, are only worth approximately 50% of their new priced once >>>> they've been driven off the lot. So if you're going to invest $2500 >>>> in >>> >>>> a 50 1.4 lens, you damn well better love that lens. ;-) >>>> >>> >>> Film is not dying BD. >>> I think its great you are on a roll with your Olympus E but lets keep > >>> our perspective on the whole thing. The film market is being >>> moderated >> >>> or minimized. AS there are other technological options which appear >>> more popular for many uses. That's all. >>> >>> There are 10 billion (last count) cameras out there which all use >>> film >> >>> to take pictures and plenty of people who are going to want to use >>> them for quite some time. >>> >>> The Nikon F6 is due out soon. >>> New film cameras are being introduced every day. >>> >>> And the ones made last year still work. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Mark Rabiner >>> Photography >>> Portland Oregon >>> http://rabinergroup.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information