Re: [Leica] Reasons to use film

[Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com>]

Dave - a few points of debate:
1) I agree, we live increasingly in a world where image is more 
important than content. This helps marketing con men to get us to 
replace perfectly good items which work perfectly well so they can make 
money.
2) Bigger IS better for digital sensors just as it is for film but size 
for size digital is better than film IME. Thus an APS digital sensor is 
IME better than 35mm film BUT it is also MUCH better than the tiny tiny 
sensors fitted to P&S digital. The sensor in the Leica digilux 2 and 
similar top end P&S cameras is the size of my index fingernail, the 
less expensive cameras have sensors about half the size of my little 
fingernail. So 35mm film is much better than them, but Minox film 
probably isn't - I haven't used a Minox for years. Does one often 
need/fully exploit the potential of 35mm film on a Leica? I only 
exploited the full potential in the darkroom on my biggest prints, most 
of the time the resolution superiority was just wasted on a print of 
only 10x8".
3) Film is not strictly completely analogue either because of the 
discrete number of grains. At least changing film gives a choice of 
number of "silver pixels" lots on Velvia fewer on HP5.
Frank

On Saturday, February 21, 2004, at 10:25  pm, David Rodgers wrote:

> I'm tired of contemplating "digital -- film, which is best". The 
> debate has
> darkened the farthest reaches of my cranium. The nice midtone gray 
> matter
> therein has been so overexposed it's now black (although not Gallerie 
> black
> because if you zoom in you'll see artifacts). I give up. Film is dead.
> Digital wins. But while it's being embalmed, here are some reasons to 
> still
> use film..
>
> 1) Film is underhyped. At this point it's absolutely devoid of hype. I 
> hate
> hype with a passion. It's the carrot in front of the cart. Digital is 
> the
> mother-of-all-hype at the moment. If you want to know what's behind the
> hype, follow the money trail. It says follow me, again and again. Ask 
> any
> leming where that'll get ya. Reminds me of the days when autofocus 
> arrived
> on the scene. I jumped on board early. Not Nikon AF3 early, but not 
> long
> after that. After buying 4 new bodies in 4 years I gave up and 
> returned to
> my trusty Leica. Took me a couple of rolls to get back into the 
> focusing
> swing of things. Hey, this manual stuff works!!!. I never looked back. 
> I was
> too busy looking into the viewfinder making sure I was in focus. In 
> the back
> of my mind I thought, "someday when the technology matures I'll buy 
> AF."
> Well, that day came around last year. I bought an AF Nikon body 
> because, as
> everyone knows, film cameras are cheap these days. Just like an aging, 
> well
> you know, the worlds oldest profession....mature means inexpensive. I
> quickly discovered that I wasn't disillusioned because the technology 
> wasn't
> mature. I was disillusioned because I don't like AF. I've come to 
> realize
> that moments spent autofocusing are moments wasted.
>
> 2) Film is bigger. And when it comes to the surface area of capture, 
> size
> matters. It matters even in those little unimportant areas like 
> rendering
> backgrounds out of focus. Affordable chip size isn't going to get any 
> bigger
> until there's a huge technological advancement. So the hypesters have
> convinced us that smaller is better. They refer to the chip as a 1.5 
> or a
> 1.6 to 1. Oh, that's the lens-focal-length-improvement-ration. And to 
> think
> all these years I could have been using Minox film with my 600mm Nikkor
> making it into a Saturn Rocket. What everyone tries to avoid is saying 
> that
> the actual surface area is s-m-a-l-l-e-r. They finally got serious
> professionals to accept APS as a viable surface size.
>
> 3) Film works. Finally, a totally rational reason. I know all the 
> marketing
> people (a few of whom I'm certain reside on the LUG in disguise) would 
> have
> us believe overwise, but film really does work for taking pictures. 
> And it
> works pretty darn well. It's so mature it's boring. Digital isn't 
> film. It's
> an alternative to film for some things. For instance, you can never 
> make a
> fully analog image if digital is anywhere in the workflow. At somewhere
> along the way you've incrementalize the sine wave. You've lost 
> information.
> You can drawn a line in the sand with film. With digital you draw 
> points
> along a line. Which is better? Ooops, that's not what this is about.
>
> DaveR
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html