[Leica] Alien Skin Exposure

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

At 11:04 PM +0100 12/3/06, Philippe Orlent wrote:
>Happy to agree :-)
>But there still is a nuance in what you and I are saying.
>The beauty of a full analog procedure lies in the following: the 
>result depends of so many variables that it's impossible to 
>perfectly recreate an image time after time. No matter what amount 
>of (sometimes frustrating) work you put into it. And that the result 
>is always coincidental. A piece unique.
>Not so in digital. And digital is the way the world is going. 
>Nothing will stop it. And it's good, too. Because it's easy.
>I'm just trying to combine the 'best' of both worlds.
>So any time something passes by that adds possibilities to the 
>recreation of this kind of coincidence in this digitized era, I'm 
>interested.
>Because coincidence is the motor of change, IMO.
>By trying to eliminate that coincidence the world will come to a 
>standstill. Hence: perfection is boring.
>Just my opinion, ofcourse.
>I think I'm finally ready to embrace to LP's and turntables again ;-)
>
>Philippe
>
>P.S.: One could also argue that since reaching perfection is 
>impossible, coincidence is invoked by trying to reach it.
>The result is nevertheless the same.
>Look at the M8: purely coincidentally a totally new style of magenta 
>cast photography emerged...
>I bet you'll see it in the fashion magazines within a few months. 
>(wink wink, nodge nodge, smilies ad nauseam)

I don't really quite understand this 'perfection' in digital. Yes, in 
some areas it allows a greater technical quality than film. In IR 
photography and low light things are a lot easier now. And the fact 
that in some cases you can produce something with 35mm equipment that 
formerly required medium format. It advances technical quality, and 
often by a fairly big step, but we've had them before, as when 
Kodachrome became available. Maybe the advances have been greater in 
the last 5 years than in previous periods, but it's far from 
'perfection'.

Colour negative like the Fuji NP films still handle greater contrast 
ranges than single shot digital, and ultimate resolution is still 
greater in some of the fine grain B&W films. Large format colour 
negative can still do things that takes huge amounts of money and 
effort well beyond what most people are able or willing to invest.

I think that Photoshop is the huge advance; digital capture is also a 
significant technical advance, but more so through things like 
drastically lowering the cost/shot and the rapid learning curve made 
possible by instant feedback than the initial result.

In my time with film photography (I was busy with an Ansco folder in 
the early 50's) the biggest single advance was the introduction of 
optical image stabilization in the 90's. The other stuff that was 
newly introduced or developed for large scale us, such as TTL 
metering, auto exposure, autofocus, motor wind didn't have as big an 
impact nor was it as revolutionary.

But overall, going from guess focussing an Ansco 6x9 camera with 
exposure estimation and contact printing through some other cameras 
to Leicas with interchangeable lenses and shooting colour slides or 
enlarging B&W all in a time period of 10 years was a huge advance for 
me personally, probably bigger than going digital.

And, just as I still used medium format after I got the Leicas, and 
contact printed 8x10 later, I still use film reqularly now.

It's not the 'lower technical perfection' level that I'm looking for, 
but rather the familiarity of use and even the better understanding 
of the process in that I know more precisely what the final result 
will be, in spite of not having instant feedback.

-- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com