[Leica] re: digital treadmill

[jonathan at openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden)]

  B. D. Colen wrote:
>
> I find that digital gives me an image by image, rather than roll by  
> roll,
> choice of color v black and white. I was never particularly fond of  
> color
> negative film, and wasn't thrilled with conversions to black and  
> white.
> Digital, on the other hand, gives me better color, far, far more  
> easily
> adjusted and balanced, and gives me black and whites that look like  
> what I
> shot on black and white film.

This is certainly true as well for film scanned to digital -- I had  
the same misconception or bias against color film until recently.  
With the ability to scan and adjust curves in Photoshop the final  
output quality of a B/W inkjet print (at least in my hands) bests the  
quality of a B/W fiber print. Inkjet prints can be made with long- 
lasting carbon inks that have blacks as deep or deeper than the best  
of silver gelatin. I daresay that you would have a hard time telling  
the origin of such a print as from a B/W or color negative.

>
> No, I'm not thrilled with the noise in shadows, but I'm getting  
> used to it.
> I know that there are those who say 'why get used to it  when you  
> can use
> film?' And the answer is "because it is part of what is now main  
> stream
> photography."  If I was really bothered by it, I'd go with Canon  
> and get
> smoother, cleaner results at iso 1600 than I got with the best 400  
> iso film.
> But I'm not all that thrilled with the overly clean Canon look -  
> probably
> because I grew up on Tri-X.
>
> Now, am I as comfortable with my DSLR as I was with my M6s? No, I'm  
> not. I
> love the feel of the Ms. I love the rangefinder framing. And there is
> absolutely no question that the latest Leica M glass had virtually  
> no peers.
> That said, my DSLR is every bit as quiet as my M6, and I do like its
> ergonomics. The lenses? Some are up to Leica quality, some aren't.  
> But all
> give me images that I can be proud of as frequently as my Ms did.

What keeps me with the M6 (at least for the next year) is a couple of  
factors:

1) the quality/size ratio -- you can compare an M6/film image against  
a DSLR but compact digital cameras don't really approach the image  
quality of an M6 and film.
2) the dynamic range of film gives CCD sensors a run for their money  
-- it is agreed that full frame sensor cameras do a terrific job but  
they are large "beasts" compared to the M6 -- that said the 5D is  
tempting if it weren't for my anticipation of the digital M.

>
> So am I giving up something to get something? Yes, I suppose I am.  
> I'm given
> up the feel of the Ms - and I am giving up those fast prime lenses;  
> I've
> never been a zoom guy, and I've had to adapt to that. But life is  
> about
> tradeoffs, so why wouldn't I expect photography to be?
>
> The bottom line, as always, is the results. And I'm willing to be  
> that were
> I not now known as the ultimate Leica apostate ;-), I could be  
> posting the
> black and white images I've been posting, telling everyone I shot  
> them with
> my M6, and no one would question me.
>
> Finally, none of this means that someone else shouldn't be shooting  
> film. If
> it does what you want it to do, and if money isn't an object - and  
> if you
> don't have to turn results around quickly - why not keep shooting  
> film until
> there's no film to shoot?

We've reached the point where it is rather hard to beat the "digital  
darkroom" in terms of quality -- I am using the new Epson K3 series  
of printers namely the 4800. The time to give up film will be when a  
high quality digital sensor can be married with the form factor of an M.

Jonathan