RE: [Leica] The new digital reality -

["bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of
Teresa299@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 6:17 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] The new digital reality -



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.)

1. The freelance assignment I am working on is a feature story - time is
not the issue. And the portrait of a researcher was just that - but
someone a half-a-world away needed it 'yesterday.' Breaking news stories
are not being held for days or weeks any more than breaking news photos.
The muckraking you - and I - would like to see done is not  being done
for reasons which we shouldn't be discussing on this list. ;-)


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).

2. Over the course of three hours of shooting I produced 90 digital
images and apx 30 film images - which means I shot somewhat less than
five rolls of film. That's hardly using digital to shoot madly and
produce massive volumes of work.

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.

3. Using digital has nothing to do with subject choice, framing,
composition, or choice of light and lighting. It has nothing to do with
the McDonaldisation of photography any more than the switch from 4x5s to
35 mm with its 36 exposure cartridges did.

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.

4. Nothing wrong with film, for hobbyists or pros. I LIKE the look of
black and white film. I still prefer it to digital. But I would suggest
that if you think all digital looks "fake," you're seeing crappy
digital. ;-)


B. D.

Kim
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html