[Leica] Digital/film debate

[scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin)]

Doug,

To each his own. Really!  For amateurs and artists, at least, I don't fully
understand the nature of the "debate" excepting personal finances.

I keep being reminded of the tube vs. solid state amplification debate
in the guitar world.  Classic tone and "feel" (and cost!) vs. controlled
feedback, lower weight, economy, etc.  With digital modelling of classic
tones, solid state keeps getting better and better, but many folks keep 
using
tube amps even with steeply rising costs.  Of course, jazzer's with
great tone have used classic Polytone solid state amps for decades
(including me), while many rockers look for the classic Mesa Boogie
tones of Santana, Scofield and even early Metallic (including me, again) 
:-)  
You have to dial it in for yourself.

Ultimately, the only person who should care is the individual artist
(small "a").   Sure maybe itinerant studio musicians need versatility, or
low weight or whatever, and a versatile instrument or two, but that
doesn't mean they might not well prefer the feel and "results" of an
old small Gibson class A amp and even older Epiphone acoustic
archtop at home. Point being, when it's your own thing, it's whatever
suits your fancy.

As for the aesthetics, there's an old adage in guitardom, when a newbie
asks how Wes Montgomery gets his tone:  "The tones in his fingers." With
photography, my own belief is that light, composition (or "vision"), 
exposure
and processing (with B&W), strongly dominate the quality of whatever optics
are used.  Yes, there are exceptions for certain types of compositions. And
there are format/media exceptions with enlargements, depending on what one
is trying to achieve there.  But in both of these cases, I still don't 
see much
room for a "debate" of much interest.  If you need a 4x5 and movements, or
a wide lens with little barrel distortion - well, then that is what you 
need.
If you "see" Tri-X in rodinal or an 8x10 platinum contact print, great. But
of course, a great photograph can be taken with a digicam, or "made" with
some Photoshop artistry too.

Commercial support is an ongoing issue, including the availability of camera
equipment and film, and so too is personal finances.  Hand carved
archtop guitars and classic amp costs (and repair costs!) go up and up. So
too probably with classic fine cameras and film and chemistry in the
future. Many fine guitar shops folded or were consolidated, often their
brands applied to inexpensively made instruments hanging on the wall
at guitar center.  To take their place, many independent shops and 
craftsmen
make classic instruments worth a kings ransom.

For Leica and its kind, time will tell.  I hope for the best for the 
company,
and I guess for Zeiss and CV and any other "successors" who continue to
serve folks who want to shoot with small format RF film cameras, or who
just happen to "see" what a DR Summicron puts on film, or whatever.

Personally, in addition to my Leica kit, have a D70 kit I use for certain
things, and when funds allow, I'd love to put together a small MF kit
as well as a wet darkroom.  I saw Sally Mann's "What Remains" exhibit,
and photographs from glass plates even look intriguing. We'll see.

Sorry for the long analogy :-)

Scott

dnygr wrote:

>I enjoy reading everyone's comments on digital and film. 
>
>The discussion to me is not a war nor an argument. I found Nathan's account 
>to be fascinating, especially how good glass makes a better digital print. 
>That old computer adage (Junk in, junk out) appears to hold for digital 
>photography as well.
>
>I can appreciate why people like digital photography. A large part of me is 
>attracted to it, but a larger part of me still enjoys film so much that 
>there is no need to go digital.
>
>I enjoy putting the film in the camera. I enjoy loading the 120 film onto 
>reels. I enjoy developing the film. And I enjoy printing in a subdued 
>atmosphere (vs sitting in front of the beamed light of a computer).  
>
>My goal, when I print, is one esquisite print a night. That's what I'll 
>work up when I go digital, but for now, I find film and the darkroom fun 
>enough.
>
>AND one last thing--I like using simple cameras. It has the advantage that 
>you don't have to deal with complicated digital menus. In that regard, I'm 
>not a fan of Canon film cameras either. Too many gadgets for me, but not 
>for others. I like using a Horseman 6x12 and a Hasselblad 38mm Biogon 
>without viewfinders. This is not to everyone's taste, I realize. I use them 
>for street photography with excellent results.  I also enjoy shooting with 
>a Linhoff 4x5, I enjoy the process of working with the manual camera. It is 
>slow. It is old-fashioned. Likewise, Leica M is fun to shoot with and just 
>fun to hold. 
>
>The idea is that photography should be fun. I imagine that one day I will 
>go digital to keep the fun going, though for now I'm having a blast with 
>film, and I don't feel the need to comlicate my life with digital except to 
>send photos to friends over the internet, which I consider a wonderful 
>thing to do.
>
>Best regards--Doug Nygren 
>
> 
>________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> 
>                   
>
> 
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>  
>