Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
From: sethrosner at direcway.com (Seth Rosner)
Date: Tue Nov 9 10:10:17 2004
References: <00d101c4c67c$65331f30$6801a8c0@ccapr.com>

B.D., did you miss the smiley ? I WAS kidding about the "wasted" film.

Seth

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:51 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron


> Three reasons - First, it is the first roll of slide film I've had in a
> 2 1/4 since about 1965! Second, I'm playing with the camera and want to
> see what the results will look like. Three, I long ago digitized the cat
> to death. :-) But I'm amused by your question, because if you don't
> think that 90 percent of the folks on this list aren't using their $5000
> Leica M body-lens combinations, and slide film and print film to often
> take equally silly photos, you really are out of touch with LUG reality.
> You are, of course, correct, that digital makes much more sense in that
> you can just delete, delete, delete and then reuse the same CF card to
> take more meaningful images. Not that photos of our favorite felines
> aren't meaningful. Hell, I'll bet that photo books of cats outsell
> Selgado's books by about 1000 to 1.
> 
> Speaking of, a zillion years ago I remember sitting with some friends in
> the Wash Post cafeteria trying to come up with the perfect book idea- an
> instant bestseller. As I recall what we finally settled on was
> "Lincoln's Gay Nazi Cat's Diet and Exercise Plan." :-)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
> Seth Rosner
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:45 AM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
> 
> 
> Why you "waste" 6X6 slide film on furry felines is beyond me, B.D.
> 
> Think of how much easier and cheaper it would have been in digital -
> delete, 
> delete, delete.   ;-)
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
> To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:05 AM
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
> 
> 
>> And Seth - I think you are absolutely right about the New Zealand 
>> story
>> - that has the ring of "urban digital legend" to it. ;-)
>>
>> And I just returned to the keyboard having wasted 10 minutes wasting 
>> two frames of 2 1/4 slide film on one of our cats... :-)
>>
>> Best
>> B. D.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
>> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Seth Rosner
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 10:50 AM
>> To: Leica Users Group
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
>>
>>
>> B.D.
>>
>> I don't think I disagree with one thing you wrote. Except that I 
>> suspect
>>
>> that the LHSA member who couldn't find film in New Zealand had an 
>> agenda or was looking for film in the wilderness. I simply do not 
>> believe that one
>>
>> cannot find film to buy in N.Z.
>>
>> Seth
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
>> To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 10:16 AM
>> Subject: RE: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
>>
>>
>>> Hi, Seth - I have said many times that I suspect there will be film 
>>> around during our life-times. The fact that Kodak and Fuji will 
>>> continue to manufacture film is hardly surprising, given the number 
>>> of
>>
>>> film cameras out there.
>>>
>>> Far more telling however - and even I find it astonishing - is your 
>>> friend's experience. That is the reality.
>>>
>>> Beyond that, digital appeals top far more than editors and P&S 
>>> throw-away freaks. In fact, many editors have been resisting digital 
>>> -
>>
>>> particularly magazine editors. Digital doesn't appeal to people 
>>> because it symbolizes anything - it appeals to people because it 
>>> gives
>>
>>> the overwhelming majority as good or better results than they got 
>>> with
>>
>>> film, cheaper and faster than they got those film results. You seem 
>>> to
>>
>>> forget that most people don't shoot 25 iso slide film with Leica Ms 
>>> using the latest aspheric lenses - they shoot with disposable film 
>>> cameras (speaking of throw-away) and with point-and-shoots costing 
>>> less than $100.
>>>
>>> The real digital story is that digital delivers on the 
>>> never-quite-fulfilled promise of Polaroid - it's true instant 
>>> photography. And, as I mentioned in my response to Mark Rabiner, with
> 
>>> the arrival of the new Epson, Canon - and I just saw an ad in this 
>>> morning's paper for a similar product from Dell - people are being 
>>> offered their own 4x6 'labs' for about $150! If you're not a 
>>> Leicaphile, or someone who has a real need for film, or an artistic 
>>> interest in it, why would you want film when you can have a $150 
>>> appliance at home that for $.29 a print cranks out 4x6s every bit as 
>>> good or better than the 4x6s you got at the corner lab - that were 
>>> often pretty crappy, dust covered, and scratched?
>>>
>>> As to shooting film and scanning - which I did for about five years, 
>>> yes, it's a great way to go if you want to shoot film. I still do it 
>>> on occasion, and I'm sure I will continue to do it for some time to 
>>> come. It does not, however, offer many of the benefits of digital 
>>> that
>>
>>> go beyond cost and speed - but those sure are huge, important 
>>> benefits
>>
>>> of digital.
>>>
>>> I think that those of you for whom money is less of a concern than it
> 
>>> is for most people greatly underestimate the importance of cost in 
>>> this film-digital equation. I shoot professionally, but when it comes
> 
>>> to my personal shooting, cost is an enormous part of the equation; I 
>>> have to think about my son's college tuition, and all my other 
>>> expenses, when I shoot for myself. And digital allows me to totally 
>>> ignore the cost part of photography - I can carry a camera with me 
>>> all
>>
>>> the time and shoot my brains out - without spending a penny. I am 
>>> definitely shooting more now that I am shooting digital than I was 
>>> shooting when I was primarily using film. And the more I shoot for 
>>> myself, the better my photography for clients gets - and the more my 
>>> digital bw work looks like my film bw work. ;-)
>>>
>>> Yes, Seth, film will be around as long as we will - but with every 
>>> passing year it will become more and more exotic and, I suspect, more
> 
>>> expensive. Just as the price of digital storage and printing is 
>>> dropping, and will continue to drop up to a certain point, so the 
>>> cost
>>
>>> of film and processing it will continue to rise.
>>>
>>> If you like film, shoot it. Enjoy it. Revel in it.  But don't allow 
>>> your personal enjoyment to keep you from seeing the reality that we 
>>> are living through one of those major moments in the technical 
>>> history
>>
>>> of photography in which the medium of photography moves from one form
> 
>>> of image capture and storage to another.
>>>
>>> B. D.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
>>> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf 
>>> Of Seth Rosner
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:39 AM
>>> To: Leica Users Group
>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi  B.D.:
>>>
>>> At the LHSA Leica Akademie meeting last week, I sat next to a member 
>>> who
>>>
>>> said that in New Zealand recently, he couldn't find a place to buy 
>>> film and had to buy a cheap digital to record his trip; added that 
>>> film would be dead in two years.
>>>
>>> The following day Karen Sweet, Kodak representative, gave a 
>>> power-point presentation on Kodak's doings in imaging, both film and 
>>> digital. An astonishing array of world-class digital products and an 
>>> equally astonishing array of up-dated old and brand new professional 
>>> film emulsions, in 35mm and other formats. During her talk and the 
>>> ensuing q&a I could not help thinking
>>> of you.
>>>
>>> Take a look at the Kodak website for their film palette. Then talk 
>>> about
>>>
>>> film's demise.
>>>
>>> It is clear that professionals and editors to whom speed and ease of 
>>> transmission is critical are working, perhaps close to exclusively, 
>>> in
>>
>>> digital. Equally clear that a majority of p&s consumers in the west 
>>> will
>>>
>>> choose digital for its ease and cheapness, and because it almost 
>>> symbolizes the disposable, throw-away world we live in.
>>>
>>> IMHO, Ted's current methodology is the very best combination of 
>>> quality and
>>> ease: film capture, then scan, edit and print digitally.
>>>
>>> My strong bet: neither Kodak nor Fuji will leave the film business in
> 
>>> our lifetimes.
>>>
>>> Seth     LaK 9
>>>
>>> Had a wonderful time; wish you were her.  ;-)
>>>
>>> Seth        LaK 9
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
>>> To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 10:48 PM
>>> Subject: RE: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
>>>
>>>
>>>> First off, Marc, while I like the E-1, I wouldn't lose a 
>>>> nanosecond's
>>
>>>> sleep if digital turned out to be the passing fancy, or whatever it 
>>>> is
>>>
>>>> some of you seem to believe it is. I love film, love my Ms. Just 
>>>> like
>>
>>>> the people who loved their daguerreotypes loved those plates, and 
>>>> just
>>>
>>>> like the speed graphic shooters loved their film holders.
>>>>
>>>> But as much as I hate to burst your bubble, film is indeed dying. 
>>>> Tell
>>>
>>>> the folks at Ilford and Kodak that film isn't dying. Of course there
> 
>>>> are sixteen trillion film cameras out there. But that has nothing to
> 
>>>> do with whether film is dying. I'm sure you'll go on shooting film 
>>>> until the day you die, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the 
>>>> previous capture medium. The question isn't how many film cameras 
>>>> still exist, the important question is - at what rate is the number 
>>>> of
>>>
>>>> digital cameras increasing every six months, and how does that 
>>>> compare
>>>
>>>> to the number of film cameras being sold?
>>>>
>>>> As to the Nikon F6 - Yes indeed, it is due out - and I will place 
>>>> money on the fact that Nikon will, within 12 months of the 
>>>> introduction of the F6, announce a digital back for it - probably a 
>>>> full-frame digital back as they don't have one yet. No major camera 
>>>> company - other than Leica - will introduce a pro film camera that 
>>>> is
>>
>>>> not also a digital camera. For Gds sake, Nikon F5s and Canon EOS1ns 
>>>> are being virtually given away these days.
>>>>
>>>> Another sign of the ascendency of digital is the printers that Epson
> 
>>>> and Canon are now churning out for the home market that crank out 
>>>> 4x6s
>>>
>>>> at apx .$29 a piece - just pop in your CF card, or hook up your 
>>>> camera, and print away - no computer necessary, no knowledge of 
>>>> photoshop necessary. Your own "60 minute" photolab in on your own 
>>>> kitchen table.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the reality is that film is now the domain of hobbiests, a 
>>>> small
>>
>>>> number of documentary photographers and some art photographers. Kids
> 
>>>> aren't buying film point and shoots now Mark - they're buying 
>>>> digital
>>
>>>> P&Ss and camera cell phones.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
>>>> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf
> 
>>>> Of Mark Rabiner
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 9:24 PM
>>>> To: Leica Users Group
>>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/8/04 3:52 PM, "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> typed:
>>>>
>>>>> That used to be the beauty, Vic. But alas, with the dying of film, 
>>>>> it
>>>
>>>>> is no longer true. While Leica equipment may hold its value better 
>>>>> than most film equipment, it is no longer holding it the way it did
> 
>>>>> even a year ago. M6 TTLs purchased for $1995 were selling for about
> 
>>>>> $1450 in near mint condition - now they're down to about $1150 - if
> 
>>>>> you're lucky- and used M7s, which are now selling for, what, around
> 
>>>>> $2800, are only worth approximately 50% of their new priced once 
>>>>> they've been driven off the lot. So if you're going to invest $2500
> 
>>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>> a 50 1.4 lens, you damn well better love that lens. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Film is not dying BD.
>>>> I think its great you are on a roll with your Olympus E but lets 
>>>> keep
>>
>>>> our perspective on the whole thing. The film market is being 
>>>> moderated
>>>
>>>> or minimized. AS there are other technological options which appear 
>>>> more popular for many uses. That's all.
>>>>
>>>> There are 10 billion (last count) cameras out there which all use 
>>>> film
>>>
>>>> to take pictures and plenty of people who are going to want to use 
>>>> them for quite some time.
>>>>
>>>> The Nikon F6 is due out soon.
>>>> New film cameras are being introduced every day.
>>>>
>>>> And the ones made last year still work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark Rabiner
>>>> Photography
>>>> Portland Oregon
>>>> http://rabinergroup.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron)
In reply to: Message from bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron)