[LRFlex] Re: WAS: new zoom lens NOW: Age & cameras! :-)
- From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@xxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:51:43 -0700
Hello Elliot,
OK I'll try to keep this brief:
>> Hi Ted: I am interested in your decision to have decided to use digital.
>>You are certainly one of the most respected M and R users, and I wonder
if
> you might take a second or two to let us know what prompted you to have
> started to use Leica digital. <<<
The main reason is.. At the Leica Seminar in 3 weeks in Hyannis MA. one of
the presentations is "Digital photography with the Digilux 2." It's as
simple as that.
So I had to learn what the heck digital was all about. Well surely not what
it's "all about" as I've discovered doing that is a major waste of time and
one need only to understand some of the basics for successful results. Then
learn other parts when you wish to do something different. One does not need
to know everything in the over 100 pages of instructions before you can
shoot dynamic photographs.
> Also, might you share the pros and cons
> versus your long term use of film. I realize that the answer might be
> some-what longer then a simple sentence, but I know that most of us would
be
> grateful for what ever insight you might provide.<<<<<<<
Quite frankly I think the best thing I learned was digital isn't any
different than shooting film, well that's in my eyes...... "KISS! Keep it
simple stupid."
I found comments by many digi users were so concerned about chip size,
sensor lens magnification and what appears so much technical stuff it became
overwhelming. I don't think many of them ever went out and shot a ton of
stuff to see what the camera actually produced.
So KISS it was! I put the Digilux 2 on automatic, everything! Now that's a
major thing for me to do as I have always controlled my camera's whatever
model. But the Digi 2 on automatic has yet to fail me in 6 months of almost
daily use with amazing results printing on an Epson 2200. Where we make 12"
X 18" size prints in colour or B&W as a regular print size.
My concern hasn't been what's better, film or digital? It's been how good
does the print look? That's the most important part next to "How good is the
photograph?" I hear some people do all kinds of testing comparing scaned
negs or slides and digital photos looking back and forth at prints. An
absolute waste of time. Why? Simply because they're two different mediums,
therefore they're not going to look similar nor the same. Or better!
However, put one down in one room and the other in another, then look at
them as individual prints and in most cases you'll almost wet yer pants at
how beautiful both are! The wet print will look beautiful in it's on right
as a wet tray produced print. Then look at the digital and it will look
equally as beautiful in it's own right coming off a printer. But comparing
them side by each is a waste of time and one would be far better off out
shooting than playing silly compare games.
We still use film in most situations, however we do have the digilux 2 along
and when a situation allows some digital shooting time we use it. But until
I absolutely require a digital camera as no otherway to cover an assignment
I'll stay with my 3 M7's and 3 motor driven R8's.
However, I am waiting to see what the digital back for the R8-9 camera
produces, that may make a change. But I don't use a digital camera over film
because one is better than the other, as camera's are merely tools of the
profession and not some heart thumping item.
I use what's best for the very best end results... my photographs and the
excitment of what we we're shooting for. That's it.
I suppose on my new Leica B&W book just released "Women in Medicine. A
Celebration of their Work." I might've used some digital if I had the camera
while photographing women doctors and nurses across North America. But I
don't think it would've made any difference to the end look because its the
picture that counts most and not the tool.
> My local professionals here in
> Northern Florida have tended to use digital ( Canon ) when the lighting is
> controlled ( studio work ), and film ( again Canon ) when shooting away
> from home. They maintain that film is still superior, and have shown me
> examples of both mediums. One can still see the inherent "unsharpness" of
> digital at higher levels of magnification, but the difference is
narrowing.<<<<<,
Well I think playing this comparison thing is a waste of time as in the end
it's the content and quality of the photograph that's most important. And if
the pros there are shooting film away from their studio they better not
cover the Olympics. ;-) Where these past Games it must have been 99% digital
and only a few shooters film.
As far as blowing up and "unsharpness" maybe you should see some of our
semi-portrait 12X18 prints where the pores and face hair can be seen
individually like you were doing a close-up look at the face with a loupe!
:-)
I'm the least techie photo guy you probably know, so for 54 years now all
this numbers and size etc is OK if you are a techie shooter. As in film I've
never cared about all the techie stuff as hell I'm a photographer and just
want to shoot and have fun. :-) Digital or film? My approach isn't any
different KISS it and have fun. And everything will look cool. :-)
But this is exactly what I do and for me it works, certainly at a quality
level far beyond my digital or film expectations.
I hope this helps.
ted
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
