[Leica] film vs. digital in my brain.

[bd at bdcolenphoto.com (B. D. Colen)]

Well, this would make great sense - if the photos people were turning out
with their digital cameras were one whit better than the photos they turned
out with their film cameras. But - with rare exceptions - they're not. Yes,
if someone was using a manual film camera and switched to an automated
digital camera they may now be getting better exposures and their photos may
finally be in focus. But focus and perfect exposure do not excellent
photographs make. The eye, brain and heart don't know that the camera is a
just-released-at-Photokina digital, or a Leica III or an Olympus OM or a
Nikon F. Vision and imagination haven't a damn thing to do with the box, or
the material that's capturing the light. ;-)


On 9/27/06 3:19 PM, "GeeBee" <graham@geebeespaw.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Philippe,
> 
>> From the Walt Wayman on the Olympus list:
> I've got a fridge full of 120 film, both tranny and negative color, plus a
> s**tload of B&W, that I've been neglecting, to use in pretty complete
> outfits of Mamiya RB67, Graflex/Graphic 6x9 Centuries, Crowns, and XLRFs,
> with enough lenses to buckle the knees of a pack mule. Suddenly, somehow,
> digital seems to be losing its luster. And I just found six more rolls of
> Kodachrome. Seems like an omen.
> 
> Digital takes the magic out of the process. Any idiot can get a decent 
> photo
> with a digital camera -- just keep shooting and chimping, then fix it 
> later.
> Film takes some expertise and smarts. I have really slowed down shooting
> since going digital because I get nearly no satisfaction from a procedure
> that requires so little skill and thought, no matter how good the result.
> It's like fishing with dynamite or quail hunting with a flame thrower. I
> prefer a fly rod and the circa 1914 Parker Sweet 16 that belonged to my
> grandfather for those, and I'm getting gladder by the minute that I've 
> still
> got every single bit of my OM gear.
> 
> Walt
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip Forrest" <photo.forrest@earthlink.net>
> To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 8:08 PM
> Subject: [Leica] film vs. digital in my brain.
> 
> 
> Lately I have fallen in love again with my old Nikon FM and a 50mm f/1.8
> lens.  Here begins my problem.  I LOVE film however, I just can't afford
> shooting it as much as I would like.  Soon perhaps, but that's of no
> consequence.  So I take my Canon EOS 10d out most places with me and rarely
> shoot ever.  I try to make myself, but I don't know why the finger doesn't
> push the button.  If I take my Leica with, I'll shoot several rolls a day.
> Same with the Nikon FM and my EOS RT.  The digital DOES have a few issues
> that I don't like: warm up time, battery life, the crop factor and a small
> viewfinder.  (I was spoiled by Nikon F3's and F4's a few years ago and have
> kicked myself every day for selling them.)  So I'm wondering, is there any
> logical reason that I would consciously or subconsciously want to shoot 
> film
> over digital?  I'm hoping that a move up to an EOS 5d might help this, but 
> I
> wouldn't want to invest $3k and find out that I still have this digital
> "funk" and continue to shoot film.  I'm not saying that one is better than
> the other.  I'm "soul searching" for a reason of why I want to take a
> photograph with a film camera and not a digital.  Because I believe that in
> the end it's all about the image itself & not the tools used to make it.
> 
> Your sage wisdom is appreciated.
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information