[rollei_list] Re: TEST
- From: Don Williams <dwilli10@xxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:30:46 -0600
At 08:28 AM 1/14/2013, Robert wrote:
Charlie,
Yes, there is a problem. Everyone is going digital.
Regretfully,
Robert
My own take on this is that I haven't seen a digital picture that can
compare in quality and detail with one taken with a good Rollei with
an appropriate film by an accomplished photographer. On the other
hand, I have not seen a mechanically printed (meaning newspaper or
magazine, or billboard) print in which a film original is noticeably
different from a digital original.
So, maybe we are in the middle of a technical transition, just as
when tintypes and wet plates (and for the most part, Polaroid) will
slowly fade away. As for me, I have an affection for the wonderful
mechanical works that go into a Rollei or a fine 35mm camera, just as
I have an affection for what makes up a mechanical watch (which I
have collected but am now selling).
I sold my last Rollei and Rolleimarin to a professional
diver-photographer knowing it would be well used and that pleases
me. He sent the 3.5F off for a CLA without even testing it, even
though I know it was working perfectly, so I know he cares.
I have gone digital simply because it's easy for me (at age 80) to
work with and far cheaper than any film process I know of, if you can
find a film processor in your driving range.
Strange also, that Canon and Nikon are producing "35mm" digital
cameras in the $5,000 price range and, apparently, finding buyers for them.
The same thing is happening in the major motion picture business, at
least it seems so. I don't know whether all originals are shot on
film or not (Richard Knoppow or perhaps others on this list would
know more about that) but I do know that our major (Edwards Cinema)
theater here in a small Oklahoma town is at least half digital, not
sure what they are doing with their recently added, and highly
successful IMax section is doing but I think perhaps that is
sometimes digital. Of course the national distribution costs for
digital movies is incredibly lower than what it cost to print, ship,
insure, guard, and preserve film prints. I used to have the numbers
when I lived in San Diego during the time Qualcomm was teamed with
Technicolor to do digital movies, but that joint venture was closed
after just one film, which I was hired to monitor, in theater, by Lucas.
Returning to now (I don't think the phrase "at this point in time" is
more accurate than "now"), it just inflates the ego of the folks who
use that phrase. Now I still think this group is the most eclectic
one I have belonged to and I hope it continues, film or no film. I
still have some very nice postings by Richard Knoppow about developer
formulas and many interesting postings by former magazine editors and
professional photographers and I intend to keep them. Also, whenever
the thread goes far off topic, the postings are lucid, sometimes
opinionated, but always interesting. There are some very bright and
knowledgeable folks lurking who pop in with great responses. As for
me, I usually pose about one completely off topic question every year
or so and the thread lingers for a month or more.
I hope this mail group continues, and even if it is re-named, it will
be one of my favorites.
Best wishes and my thanks to the list owner and moderators.
DAW
Other related posts:
