Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 1/16/2006 3:30:16 P.M. Central Standard Time, rhaightjr@yahoo.com writes: >>All this talk about film vs. digital is really >>irrelevant to those who look to this list for >>thoughts, examples and discourse on the use of Leica M >>products. Well said, Bob. If anyone follows threads that I contribute to, they will know that for a couple years I played with digital, almost to the point of M-neglect. When you return to Leica M cameras from the digital workflow, there are some things you have to give up, and some things you gain. The thing that I give up first is autofocus. That's not a small thing, because in the film world I lived in Before Digital (B.D.) (heh) I was not an AF type guy. So af was something that I gained with digital. Many years ago when I got my first Agfa rangefinder I was scared to death of all the dials and buttons on it. After time, f stops, dof scales and the like make perfect sense to me, and I find the menus of digital ponderous. I ended up setting them to do things pretty much one way. So I gave up some control of how the picture will look to the digital camera. In return, I got variable ISO, and a nearly (for me) endless shooting capability each day With the M of course I give up zooms. Handy critters,zooms, but I get lens speed as a tradeback. With digital, I give up negatives. I don't know about you, but I like negatives. They remind me of the promise they hold. I can hold a sheet to the light and see some things about the shot right away. I can almost tell more about a shot from a negative than I can from a machine print. With digital, I give up scratches and dust, but that is not enough. I don't shoot it anymore, but I get to play with 4 x 5 negatives as much as I want at work, as we have several tens of thousands in our collection. The other day our secretary found negative portraits of me from 1965 from one of the local photogs. I scanned one that had been the choice, then I scanned another, and realized the chosen negative had been hand-spotted. What beautiful work! Johnny Deadman was discussing some of these issues on another list, and he put together this, which I hope he doesn't mind if I quote, as he seems to have thought about it more than I have, and expresses it without the emotion that I bring to the discussion "the two media/digital have a lot of important differences (not necessarily essential... some of them are just circumstantial) which do add up to a very different photographic experience: -- thinginess vs. insubstantiality of the ur-image (neg/digital file) -- (typically) manual vs. automatic exposure -- (typically) manual vs. automatic focus -- mechanical vs. electronic -- tradition vs. modernity -- cost per image vs. individual images are free -- (typically) stringent limits on number of images you can shoot vs. loose limits -- (typically) weird-ass formats available vs. a small number of digital formats -- slow post-processing vs. fast post-processing -- physical interaction with the camera vs. pushing buttons -- image reflects physical characteristics of camera & materials vs. qualities of image (typically) dependent on post-processing -- slow feedback vs. instant feedback -- independent of batteries, laptops etc vs dependent -- (typically) pleasure in the camera vs. camera-as-appliance and so on and so on. Like I say, these reflect more the typical usage of the media rather than any inherent differences... you can think of counter-examples to almost every one of these" So, Bob, you are right, though I doubt the discussions will end soon. This is the LUG, after all. Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane ?galit?, libert?, crawfish