[Leica] Not Buying M8

[imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George)]

On Mar 12, 2008, at 4:48 PM, David Rodgers wrote:
> I disagree. Photographing with film, particularly with the intent of
> making a chemical print, has everything to do with how I see light,
> compose, frame, etc. Sometimes I even think that shooting BW film is a
> different mentally from digital photography as still photography is  
> from
> motion picture photography.

I totally agree with you. The process is part of visualizing. But the  
film process does not have any more or less effect on the act of  
photography (focus, proper exposure, framing, composition, the proper  
moment) than digital.
When I use B&W sheet (or 120 roll) film. The visualized end print is  
always part of the scheme. Exposing for shadows and developing for  
highlights. When using transparency films I'm always about exposing  
for the highlights and lighting for the shadows (when possible). And  
the same is true for digital. In all cases it is always about seeing  
the light, composing framing and controlling the values (and/or colors).

Imagine that I place a camera in your hand and inform you that the  
light sensitive material inside is rated at ASA 125. There's no  
indication on the camera to indicate whether it contains film or a  
sensor. I also tell you that it is capable of recording 18 frames  
with auto shutter cock and advance to the next frame; and that it's  
only capable of recording B&W and the material has a useful dynamic  
range of 10 stops. You go out to shoot - how will the question of  
film or digital come into play in your photography? There's no  
difference. You have a camera with a light sensitive (something)  
inside it. You record whatever you record. The rest (the processing  
and print) comes later.

> I'm not sure about others, but when I shoot digital I rarely think in
> terms of BW. It may end up that an image works out better in BW.

I set up my digital cameras to display B&W when I intend B&W. If I  
don't intend it - I don't.

>  While they can be important in
> color, they usually take a back seat to color hue and saturation. Yet
> they everything when it comes to BW film.

Totally agree - the only time I want color is when color is the  
subject of the photo (or a significant element)
<http://www.imagist.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/l1002497.jpg>
needs the green cookie cutters for the holiday represented

> One example regarding light; I commonly use flash with color (digital)
> and don't have any issues with it. But it is extremely rare that I  
> ever
> used flash when shooting BW film. I think we overestimate the  
> similarity
> of BW film and digital (color) photography.

I'm testing a flash set up for a portrait commission coming up which  
is intended for B&W.
<http://www.imagist.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/l1002516.jpg>
And as always - the idea is to make the flash disappear - appear as  
natural light.

For me there's no difference between film and sensor in the  
"photography"

There's major differences in post processing.

> I have a great appreciation for film, and I'm a little bummed that I'm
> slowly losing what little knowledge about it I gained over the years.
> It's one of those things that if you don't use it you lose it.

Again - I'm totally with you in appreciation and respect for film.
Especially the the archeology of that thing (negative or positive)  
having shared space with the subject.
That's just an awesome concept that I dearly miss with digital.

Fond regards,
George
george@imagist.com
www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
Picture A Week - www.imagist.com/paw_07