Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/05/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 5/29/03 2:14:31 PM, bdcolen@earthlink.net writes: << Would the results of both these jobs look better if shot with Ms and chrome, or Fuji color neg film? Probably. Would that difference be evident in the magazine or newspaper? No way - and I'd still be scanning the stuff from the Tuesday shoot. ;-)The point of all this? You tell me. ;-) >> The one thing I keep reading about digital, when I read snippets of these endless (and perhaps necessary discussions) is that digital, above all else, satisfies the commercial marketplace. What I seem to hear folks who are in the business of making photos say is that digital is fast. The folks who pay you professionals for photos want, above all else, to be first or at least want it now, not later. On the LUG Forum I raised the observation that I found it ironic that news editors want the first photos but in other cases sit on stories for days even weeks... but perhaps a heartwrenching or tragic or gory photo is a different beast than muckracking the Bush administration (no I'm not opening up a political debate here, the LUG forum is the place for that.) In addition to immediacy I hear the merits of digtal is that you can produce massive volumes of work. Because you aren't limited by film or film development costs you can shoot thousands of shots a day. (of course I guess you could just use a dv cam and isolate the stills from that and use that if volume is your intent). No, I don't think I'm insulting any LUGGERS here who are using digital by demeaning their work, because I think a shot that has good composition or newsworthiness or that undefineable element that grabs at our eyes, heart or groin should be "good" whether it's digital or not. BUT it seems to me that the move in our global culture and society is towards the McDonaldisation of everything. Meaning the point is not to savour the piquant seasonings of an 8 course French dinner, but rather to belly up to the trough and boast over 10 billion served (or whatever ridiculous number of MadCow burgers has been consumed). We value volume, speed and consumption and often times other considerations such as civility, contemplation, get lost in the backwash. How does this relate to photography? Well, if digital cameras means that those of you who are in business of making money from flicking the shutter (or in this case activating a chip?) can make more money or can compete with each other in ways that begin to resemble a nuclear arms race (every year getting a bigger, faster, CMOS unit) then great. But what I have a problem with, and what my kneejerk reaction to, is the automatic assuming that a technological innovation is automatically assumed/marketed/ boasted to be de facto "better" than what was left behind. Quite frankly even though I don't like the look of digitally obtained shots (they look fake to me), I think the question with either technology is what is it that one is trying to accomplish. A professional photographers need is not necessarily the need or desire of a hobbyist or a f ine art photographer or even a pornographer. I think that both film and digital can meet the needs of any number of professional photographers as well as hobbyists and fine artists and I wish that the two can exist side by side. Unfortunately, I suspect that because of corporate marketing decisions, digital will be increasingly forced upon us and there's not a lot a number of us film enthusiasts can do about it other than learn how to coat our own plates and our own paper. Kim - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html