Re: [Leica] Reasons to use film

["animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl>]

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Kronquist" <mak@teleport.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Reasons to use film


> Because my wife (she will be Mary Poppins) and I (Indiana Jones) are going
> to a movie themed fund raiser for our children s school tonight and a
Leica
> IIIc is much more period approiate than a digital camera...so on goes the
> Cosina 35mm 1.7 in goes Neopan 1600 and off we go! Film lives
>
> > I'm tired of contemplating "digital -- film, which is best". The debate
has
> > darkened the farthest reaches of my cranium. The nice midtone gray
matter
> > therein has been so overexposed it's now black (although not Gallerie
black
> > because if you zoom in you'll see artifacts). I give up. Film is dead.
> > Digital wins. But while it's being embalmed, here are some reasons to
still
> > use film..
> >
> > 1) Film is underhyped. At this point it's absolutely devoid of hype. I
hate
> > hype with a passion. It's the carrot in front of the cart. Digital is
the
> > mother-of-all-hype at the moment. If you want to know what's behind the
> > hype, follow the money trail. It says follow me, again and again. Ask
any
> > leming where that'll get ya. Reminds me of the days when autofocus
arrived
> > on the scene. I jumped on board early. Not Nikon AF3 early, but not long
> > after that. After buying 4 new bodies in 4 years I gave up and returned
to
> > my trusty Leica. Took me a couple of rolls to get back into the focusing
> > swing of things. Hey, this manual stuff works!!!. I never looked back. I
was
> > too busy looking into the viewfinder making sure I was in focus. In the
back
> > of my mind I thought, "someday when the technology matures I'll buy AF."
> > Well, that day came around last year. I bought an AF Nikon body because,
as
> > everyone knows, film cameras are cheap these days. Just like an aging,
well
> > you know, the worlds oldest profession....mature means inexpensive. I
> > quickly discovered that I wasn't disillusioned because the technology
wasn't
> > mature. I was disillusioned because I don't like AF. I've come to
realize
> > that moments spent autofocusing are moments wasted.
> >
> > 2) Film is bigger. And when it comes to the surface area of capture,
size
> > matters. It matters even in those little unimportant areas like
rendering
> > backgrounds out of focus. Affordable chip size isn't going to get any
bigger
> > until there's a huge technological advancement. So the hypesters have
> > convinced us that smaller is better. They refer to the chip as a 1.5 or
a
> > 1.6 to 1. Oh, that's the lens-focal-length-improvement-ration. And to
think
> > all these years I could have been using Minox film with my 600mm Nikkor
> > making it into a Saturn Rocket. What everyone tries to avoid is saying
that
> > the actual surface area is s-m-a-l-l-e-r. They finally got serious
> > professionals to accept APS as a viable surface size.
> >
> > 3) Film works. Finally, a totally rational reason. I know all the
marketing
> > people (a few of whom I'm certain reside on the LUG in disguise) would
have
> > us believe overwise, but film really does work for taking pictures. And
it
> > works pretty darn well. It's so mature it's boring. Digital isn't film.
It's
> > an alternative to film for some things. For instance, you can never make
a
> > fully analog image if digital is anywhere in the workflow. At somewhere
> > along the way you've incrementalize the sine wave. You've lost
information.
> > You can drawn a line in the sand with film. With digital you draw points
> > along a line. Which is better? Ooops, that's not what this is about.
> >
> > DaveR
> >
No it,s about good enough isn,t it?
simon jessurun

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