[Leica] Color Negative Films

[drodgers7798 at comcast.net (David Rodgers)]

Walt Johnson wrote:

> So far, it seems there are about three of us on the LUG using Kodak UC. 

Walt,

Make that four. I don't shoot much color film. Or at least I didn't for 
a while. I thought digital was the way to go for color. But I'm back to 
using film. And UC is my choice. I'm not a high volume shooter and film 
just works out better for me. I think more before I shoot. I like the 
equipment more (I mainly use Ms, but I also have a Contax T2). I end up 
getting prints of everything, which I think is an underrated benefit.

When I shoot digital I never print every frame. So sometimes I think I'm 
missing out because looking at images on screen just isn't the same for 
me as viewing prints.  Some might see shooting film as a waste of money, 
but I really try and make the most of every shot.  I get a lot of 
satisfaction from a nice full frame print, even if that print was 
printed by WalMart or Costco. I'm more of a "point-of-capture" person, 
rather than a post production person these days. I think I may be burnt 
out on Photoshop, and maybe on the whole digital thing for now.

I have a ton of 4x6 prints fromn film on display in my home and in my 
office. Finding beautiful frames -- whether at discount shops, or flea 
markets, or anyplace -- is almost as much fun as photography.  

Here's why I think displaying images is important. There are photos I've 
had up for a month that I really didn't notice or care for. Suddenly 
I'll grow attached to them. They're images that otherwise wouldn't have 
deserved a second look on a CRT and would have been lost in the digital 
scrap heap. I usually swap out prints on display after a month or two. I 
thought that shooting volume with digital really taught me some good 
lessons, and it did. But I can say the same about putting prints on 
display and looking at them over and over. It's a different type of 
lesson,  but maybe even more valuable for evaluating  photography. If 
you're photographing to make prints then you need to study prints. 
That's just my feeling, right or wrong.

I've noticed that when I first look at one of my prints I get really 
caught up in all the little faults. I see things that I feel I should 
have done differently -- whether it's framing or DOF, or lighting, or 
your name it.  But after a while I begin to overlook the flaws (at least 
the little ones) and I see things from a different perspective. I get 
beyond technique and take the image more for what it is. There's no 
perfect image, anyway.

By the way, this obsession with perfection strikes me even harder with 
digital. But more in the post processing stage. I know I can fix a lot 
of things. But if I start taking that approach I end up spending more 
time than  if I'd just shot film.

I really think there's a place for digital in volume shooting. But I 
think we've gone overboard in the sense of saying  it's right for 
everyone. I'm not sure that things weren't better for a lot of people 
back when film was the only medium of choice. Films area amazingly good 
today. UC is pretty amazing stuff.

daveR.