Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/11/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I, too, very much miss using Ms, George, but not because they are film cameras. Rather, I miss them because I like the way they feel and handle, and I particularly like the ease of focus, and framing with a rangefinder. But the film itself? As I didn't shoot slow film, I don't miss the fine detail, and I find I am getting more shadow detail in low light with digital than with film. Obviously, if you shoot large format, the standard medium is still film - there is know alternative - and in shooting large format you're presumably going for the kind of fine detail only large format film can produce. In any case, my question was meant to be sarcastic, and was responding to someone who in essence couldn't understand why someone would be shooting digital. ;-) On 11/19/05 3:30 PM, "George Lottermoser" <imagist@imagist.cnc.net> wrote: >> From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@comcast.net> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] PAW week 16 > >> And people think they need to shoot film....why? :-) > > For the look and pleasure that film cameras offer ;-) also for "fine > detail" on slow emulsions. > > I find myself relying on the 20d, carrying it always, finally arriving > at a work-flow-groove with digital imaging software. But I truly miss > using the M's (I fear that I won't be able to afford the digital > version), blads, and view cameras. There's definitely something missing. > As I mentioned to someone off-list last week; re: view camera work - > after spending many moments to hours under a dark cloth to get > everything right - that moment when you close the shutter, stop down to > that perfect f:stop and slide the film holder into the back and grab the > cable release - m-m-m-m-good. Especially when the film holder holds 8x10 > inches of film (the perfect negative IMHO, 11x14 and 12x20 was fun but > just too damn big). Then you get another rush, when in the darkroom you > achieve perfect the development of that single negative. And another > when that print begins to appear in the tray. > > I love the look of a fine inkjet print. But I don't have the same > feeling when the thing comes out of the printer that I do when that > illusive image appears in a tray. > > There's also a magic when photographing in the studio, or on location > and the subject and/or client doesn't know what you've got "in the can." > They just trust you; and only you know the magic you've succeeded or > failed to capture. > > Likewise when doing documentary work - the tension I felt with 5 rolls > of film in my pocket has disappeared. > > I'm not making a case for film. Simply, expressing the thoughts and > feelings which float about as my work flow changes. I could also express > positive ideas and opinions about the digital work flow. The sentimental > difference probably rests in the fact that I spent literally 45 serious, > professional years with film in darkrooms, and only a few in this > digital capture/print realm. > > There's also something weird about not being able to afford to work > daily with best digital (medium format backs and scanning backs) after > cutting my teeth on 8x10 and hassy chromes from my teens on. For all of > our digital toying around - looking at 5x7 jpg's on screen - anyone > who's serious about digital photography owes themselves a look at a > state-of-the-art digital file on a large, well calibrated monitor - and > a lightjet print from same. Yes, film quality is possible but we're not > getting it with our toys. Close. Maybe even close enough. But :-) > > regards, George > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information