[Leica] Color Negative Films

[walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)]

David:

I hope everyone reads your post and takes it to heart. It seems to 
answer B.D.'s question concerning "why we photograph" in a subtle but 
very meaningful way.

Walt



David Rodgers wrote:

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