Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/27

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

Subject: [Leica] film vs. digital in my brain.
From: imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George)
Date: Wed Sep 27 13:11:36 2006
References: <005301c6e268$4585a360$6401a8c0@philbebf9fd538> <000801c6e269$cadc3370$fb054154@GeeBee>

This is simply a ridiculous statement. I appreciate the old ways as  
much as the next fellow/gal. But there's no getting around the  
obvious advantages and possibilities offered by current state of the  
art digital photographic hardware and software. Certainly many of the  
P&S cameras today and especially from a few years ago had a sort of  
dynamite quality in the noise they brought with them. But the  
difference between using an eos film camera and eos digital certainly  
doesn't compare to fly fishing or dynamiting. Nor will the difference  
between shooting with an M6, 7 or 8. For those of you who care more  
about the sound of a shutter than creating a photograph move no  
further (and I have a great appreciation for the sound of a shutter,  
whether focal plane, compur, copal or packard - I have and love all  
their sounds). I simply care a great deal more about the image than  
the sound that occurs at the moment it's made.

For anyone who enjoys the darkroom craft work and who's end result is  
intended as a silver gelatin or platinum/palladium print, etc.;  
there's no substitute; and I can understand continuing with that love  
for it's unique properties.

However, if your intention is to make prints with an inkjet, or other  
digital printer; I no longer understand a reason for wishing to scan  
35mm film.

I do, however, understand reasons to continue to use medium and large  
format film and the scanning of it - the results offer a completely  
different appearance in both traditional and inkjet prints.

I know that a number of you find the smoothness of fine digital files  
unattractive and prefer the grittiness of film. But that's also  
achievable with little effort. As a lover of large format photographs  
- I find the smoothness a plus, not a minus.

In other words - the choice is an aesthetic one - more than a  
photographic one. Much as the choice of fly rod may be.  
Aesthetically, I enjoy taking my dad's old bamboo fly rod out - but  
if I'm doing some serious fishing - I'd like a Lewis and Sage please.

Regards,
George Lottermoser
george@imagist.com



On Sep 27, 2006, at 2:19 PM, GeeBee wrote:

>  It's like fishing with dynamite or quail hunting with a flame  
> thrower. I prefer a fly rod and the circa 1914 Parker Sweet 16 that  
> belonged to my grandfather for those, and I'm


In reply to: Message from photo.forrest at earthlink.net (Philip Forrest) ([Leica] film vs. digital in my brain.)
Message from graham at geebeespaw.freeserve.co.uk (GeeBee) ([Leica] film vs. digital in my brain.)