[Leica] WAS: decline in LUG membership NOW: Comparison questions

[bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)]

1. Like Ted, I view equipment as something that is functioning best if
and when it becomes a non-issue. And the digital SLR I'm using does that
for me. It has clearly taken me a while to get to that point - I believe
George L. might have commented at some point that he thought my images
had improved fairly recently. I believe he's correct - and that has to
do with falling into that groove you ask about; getting to the point
where the camera and I are 'one.' 

2. I am just as happy with the images I'm getting digitally as the
images I was getting with M gear. Except...I have always paid more
attention to framing when using Ms than when using SLRs, and that
continues to be the case. I think that my recent five-six years of
steady M use has improved my framing all around, but there's no question
that the rangefinder is still my preference for the normal and wide
focal lengths. But given that caveat, the images are fine. I do think
there's still a difference between digital b&w and film, but I can't
quite put my finger on what it is. And I find that my black and white
results are getting closer and closer to film, so that may cease to be
an issue in the very near future.

3. Digi IS faster in turn around time because there's no delay for
processing or time taken for processing. I can shoot, come home, and
have at least a few good prints cranked out in less than an hour. And by
that point I can also have rough images ready for the client to see. So
yes, digi is faster. BUT - digital post processing does take time,
despite what anyone may say. But there's no satisfaction like the
instant satisfaction of knowing during the shoot that you've nailed the
shot.


Ted referred to the 'chimping factor' - God, I love that term; it so
perfectly describes the phenomenon. While that can be distracting, I
don't think that digital is inclining me to shoot more when I'm on an
assignment. If anything, I may be producing fewer images per hour than I
did with film - perhaps because I am more secure in knowing that I've
got what I thought I had. I do find, however, that digital has markedly
increased the volume of my personal shooting - and improved it - and
that has to do with the cost factor. I can shoot until my index finger
falls off and it doesn't cost me a dime. 

4. The only thing to add here is that I love the Ms - I have an
emotional attachment to them (which I certainly shouldn't, given my
believe that a camera is just a tool). But whether it's the heritage,
whether it's the mechanical perfection, whether it's the ergonomics; I
love those cameras. And I miss using them on a regular basis.

5) Is it really worth it? What does your heart-of-hearts tell you?<<<<<

Absolutely. And, when all is said and done, that is not even a question
for someone doing any kind of pj, editorial, or documentary work.
Digital is today; film is yesterday. It's necessary to have digital
capability today. Period. And in five years film will be an interesting
historical artifact, sill used by a handful of artists and 'old folks.'

I was just speaking with a newspaper photo editor in Florida who said
that they recently hired a young photographer who had no idea how to
process black and white film - she has never in her life loaded a tank
and done the deed. And that should tell you something - for good or ill.

Best
B. D.


















_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information