Tina Manley Posted October 4, 2010 Share #21 Posted October 4, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) If your work is going to be published, it will all end up as digital files anyway. I switched to digital in part because it is so much easier to travel with digital. No film to get through x-ray machines and keep cool and dry. That much less weight to carry around. The Leica M9 full-frame digital uses all of my Leica lenses. If you like black and white, it's not a problem to convert digital files to B&W. I could not afford to continue using film and still make a living with my photography. I have saved enough by using digital to more than pay for my M9. I don't think you would regret a change to digital. Best of luck whatever you decide! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 Hi Tina Manley, Take a look here Big thoughts. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Posted October 5, 2010 Share #22 Posted October 5, 2010 And where exactly did you pull this absurd statistic from? No scientific database, just Canikon and also Leica sales of film bodies. Pros, who make a living also for the family, gave used Canikon film bodies as birthday/Christmas presents to amateur long time friends years ago. Kept such an F5 just for friendship's sake, though I don't use Nikon any more. Not talking about proficient and dedicated amateurs, who can be compared to single digit handicap golfers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #23 Posted October 5, 2010 I wouldn't undertake an important project, such as the one you cited, with a strange digital system. It takes a little time for your new work-flow to settle down and mature. snip> But keep your wonderful film photography running until you reach a considered conclusion about the digital alternative. There is another irony considering the area of the world where the OP is working. A wonderful roll of film plus processing costs would probably feed starving a family for a week. If using film is to maintain some sort of artistic integrity (which I would dispute, digital and film are brothers, not enemies), then it really does ask the question how much more important is 'art' than the message? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina Manley Posted October 5, 2010 Share #24 Posted October 5, 2010 There is another irony considering the area of the world where the OP is working. A wonderful roll of film plus processing costs would probably feed starving a family for a week. If using film is to maintain some sort of artistic integrity (which I would dispute, digital and film are brothers, not enemies), then it really does ask the question how much more important is 'art' than the message? Steve If you use your photographs to educate people about conditions in a developing country, your work may make a difference in the lives of the people you photograph. Tina Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlad Posted October 5, 2010 Share #25 Posted October 5, 2010 Hi Annibale, Your work in the LFI gallery is bellisima! Congrats on such gorgeous work. Even though I shoot mainly digital, and even though I believe digital Leica equipment offers comparable quality in relation to film, I still believe film has a particular aesthetic quality that is extremely difficult to replicate with digital. Unless you need the convenience of speed or, like me, live in a part of the world where professional film is impossible to find and quality film processing labs are non-existent, I wouldn't change a formula that's working so well for you. Is it possible to hire an M9 for a few weeks to test it out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #26 Posted October 5, 2010 If you use your photographs to educate people about conditions in a developing country, your work may make a difference in the lives of the people you photograph. Tina And using film instead of digital adds to that education Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina Manley Posted October 5, 2010 Share #27 Posted October 5, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) And using film instead of digital adds to that education No, no! Digital is certainly cheaper.. Just making a point that the cost of your equipment might be justified if it is used to benefit the people you photograph ;-) Tina Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted October 5, 2010 Share #28 Posted October 5, 2010 Hi If it is not broke, then don't fix it. If you shoot mono then you need to chose, either the conventional or the C41 mono, or some mixture, but if you only use the conventional currently, I'd stick with it. The other quote is 'get yea behind me...' Stay outa trouble, be happy. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #29 Posted October 5, 2010 No, no! Digital is certainly cheaper.. Just making a point that the cost of your equipment might be justified if it is used to benefit the people you photograph ;-) Tina Well thats a pretty dispassionate and stark cost benefit analysis if the price of the films you shoot in one day is more than the cost of feeding the people you are photographing. Just what is this intrinsic mojo of film that means it benefit's the people being photographed so much more than digital? I'll have a guess, it's because this is the Leica Forum, and Africa is somewhere else, off the radar for common sense decisions. Film may have been the necessity a few years ago, but now there is the cheaper digital alternative. Digital is both more efficient for getting the message out to the world, it does exactly the same job, and it doesn't throw first world ideologies of 'I'm an artist!' into the face of the people being photographed, as being adamant about using film does. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 5, 2010 Share #30 Posted October 5, 2010 Well thats a pretty dispassionate and stark cost benefit analysis if the price of the films you shoot in one day is more than the cost of feeding the people you are photographing. Where as you could be shooting with a digital camera and lenses that cost more than some of the people will earn in a lifetime. Or you're wearing shoes and clothes that cost more than a year's wages. Where should be stop? Shooting naked with the cheapest camera we can find? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 5, 2010 Share #31 Posted October 5, 2010 Film may have been the necessity a few years ago, but now there is the cheaper digital alternative. Digital is both more efficient for getting the message out to the world, it does exactly the same job, and it doesn't throw first world ideologies of 'I'm an artist!' into the face of the people being photographed, as being adamant about using film does. "first world ideologies"...?! What complete and utter gibberish. "Excuse me interrupting you while you starve, but I would like to take your photo. It's ethically sound for me to do so because, as you can see, I am using a digital camera. It is ideologically acceptable to content-free, soulless, humourless hypersensitive socialists and of course my use of it proves that I am not an artist." Sorry, I was wrong. Not gibberish. Just arrant nonsense. I detect jealousy at work here. Why am I not surprised? This thread is about Annibale's personal choices not your personal agenda. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 5, 2010 Share #32 Posted October 5, 2010 If you're a starving AIDS sufferer in Africa, could you give a toss whether some Western outsider uses film or digital to take your photograph? Some very odd arguments here, IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #33 Posted October 5, 2010 "first world ideologies"...?! What complete and utter gibberish. "Excuse me interrupting you while you starve, but I would like to take your photo. It's ethically sound for me to do so because, as you can see, I am using a digital camera. It is ideologically acceptable to content-free, soulless, humourless hypersensitive socialists and of course my use of it proves that I am not an artist." Sorry, I was wrong. Not gibberish. Just arrant nonsense. I detect jealousy at work here. Why am I not surprised? This thread is about Annibale's personal choices not your personal agenda. Well OK, you tell me why using film is a benefit to getting the message across? Are you saying each frame has more meaning than a frame of digital? In twenty years of journalistic photography I'm not sure I could justify any further artistic merit apparent in film over digital, although people making images simply based around their own egocentric agenda might disagree. The ability to get photographs onto the world stage without the need to process film, scan it, then email it has to be a benefit, no? So lets hear it, where does common sense end and where does common sense start, because I'd say in this case the message is more important than the medium. But of course, sitting around pontificating in a nice warm room with a nice fat income always skews the brain, so I could be wrong? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 5, 2010 Share #34 Posted October 5, 2010 So much pent-up anger... So much envy... Skewed logic as well as skewed priorities. You have my pity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #35 Posted October 5, 2010 If you're a starving AIDS sufferer in Africa, could you give a toss whether some Western outsider uses film or digital to take your photograph? Some very odd arguments here, IMHO. I suppose the AIDS sufferer might wonder if the tosser said 'I'm using film because its artistic, but thats more important than feeding your family'. You see its only a term that means anything if 'they' know how much things cost, which they don't, so wearing fancy shoes, or having a fancy camera means nothing at all because they don't read FHM or Amateur Photographer. So what are you saying, they have AIDS so they can't think of anything else? FFS. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #36 Posted October 5, 2010 So much pent-up anger... So much envy... Skewed logic as well as skewed priorities. You have my pity. As usual Bill, you have no answer, be warm. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 5, 2010 Share #37 Posted October 5, 2010 I suppose the AIDS sufferer might wonder if the tosser said 'I'm using film because its artistic, but thats more important than feeding your family'. You see its only a term that means anything if 'they' know how much things cost, which they don't, so wearing fancy shoes, or having a fancy camera means nothing at all because they don't read FHM or Amateur Photographer. Sorry, I don't follow what you're trying to say. If shooting digital is somehow morally more acceptable than shooting film - which is what I _think_ you're trying to say - do you go further and say that rather than shooting with an expensive Leica an lenses the photographer should use the cheapest point and shoot they can find? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 5, 2010 Share #38 Posted October 5, 2010 So what are you saying, they have AIDS so they can't think of anything else? FFS. Of course not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 5, 2010 Share #39 Posted October 5, 2010 I don't engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man, Steve. In any event you have done a grand job at making yourself look ridiculous already with your "contributions" to this thread; I really could do no better. Toss another whippet on the fire, eh, there's a good chap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #40 Posted October 5, 2010 Sorry, I don't follow what you're trying to say. If shooting digital is somehow morally more acceptable than shooting film - which is what I _think_ you're trying to say - do you go further and say that rather than shooting with an expensive Leica an lenses the photographer should use the cheapest point and shoot they can find? No, this started as an irony of the situation, which if you had bothered to follow the thread you would know. That the cost of film was able to feed a family for a week, or thereabouts, approximately, give or take, maybe not a cow's worth. My thesis all along has been that using digital gets the images onto a wider world stage faster and in a more easily absorbed way. Look to other people who have tried to distort this message, like Bill, like Andy. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.