lars_bergquist Posted June 16, 2012 Share #61 Posted June 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) But this is not true. There are many technical reasons to still shoot film. To argue technical reasons to prefer film today is like arguing the advantages of dentures over your native dentition. Hey, you can take them out and clean them more efficiently than when affixed to your gums! I have not exposed one single frame of film since I received my M9. Which I did promptly as I had staked a place in the queue already before the camera was announced. And I do not feel disadvantaged. The old man from the Hypo Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 Hi lars_bergquist, Take a look here Stefan Daniel Interview Offers Clues. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted June 16, 2012 Share #62 Posted June 16, 2012 Why do they sell the MM with software so that you can try and make your MM shots look a bit like they were taken with film? What's the point of that?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 16, 2012 Share #63 Posted June 16, 2012 James, the point of Silver Efex for the M-Monochrom is net necessarily to help the images look like film. Rather, Silver Efex has a much better facility for burning and dodging than Lightroom — and therefore its inclusion in the package is a good idea. —Mitch/Chiang Mai Scratching the Surface Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 16, 2012 Share #64 Posted June 16, 2012 If you scan and photoshop film-based photographs you lose most of the reasons to shoot film imo. This is such absolute and inflammatory rubbish I'm astounded that a moderator on this forum can say it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 16, 2012 Share #65 Posted June 16, 2012 This is such absolute and inflammatory rubbish I'm astounded that a moderator on this forum can say it.No way. Last December I bought a beautiful, black Hasselblad 903-SWC with specifically this is mind, that I would have film developed and have darkroom prints made by the best darkroom printer in Bangkok. Unfortunately, he died in a tragic car accident. The only other really good printer stopped printing, and I ended up selling my 903-SWC. There is a difference in darkroom prints and inkjet prints — and I agree with Jaap on this point. —Mitch/Chiang Mai Scratching the Surface Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 16, 2012 Share #66 Posted June 16, 2012 Why do they sell the MM with software so that you can try and make your MM shots look a bit like they were taken with film? What's the point of that?? Partly perhaps because (shock, horror, outrage, disgust etc...) there are some people who like to try to make their digital prints look a bit more like they were taken with film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted June 16, 2012 Share #67 Posted June 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leica is a niche company. We are the niche. Sure many would like to own a Leica who now own Nikanons, but I never saw the X1's flying off the shelves to those people. They probably want an interchangeable lens system and for them Leica is just too expensive. Most Nikanon owners would not even walk into a Leica store or to the Leica counter in a Photo/Camera store because over their entire lives they have had reinforced in their minds the opinion that any Leica is well beyond their financial means. Changing this life-long mentality of these people will probably never happen in their lifetime. Also, not much mention here of the excellent sounding B&W printing service Leica is offering to the soon-to-be new MM owners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted June 16, 2012 Share #68 Posted June 16, 2012 No way. Last December I bought a beautiful, black Hasselblad 903-SWC with specifically this is mind, that I would have film developed and have darkroom prints made by the best darkroom printer in Bangkok. Unfortunately, he died in a tragic car accident. The only other really good printer stopped printing, and I ended up selling my 903-SWC. There is a difference in darkroom prints and inkjet prints — and I agree with Jaap on this point. However, inkjet is only one option for producing prints from digital files (whether originating as film capture or digital capture.) One can have traditional chemical based wet prints made from digital laser printers. There is no difference in appearance whatsoever, it's the same chemicals/paper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 16, 2012 Share #69 Posted June 16, 2012 Actually it isn’t. The required dynamic range is provided for, so highlight detail shouldn’t be an issue. It’s just that the rules for optimum exposure have changed; applying the tried and proven rules of silver-halide photography to digital photography spells disaster, especially for the highlights. But surely we are all aware of this by now? Clearly there is a technical difference in how b/w film handles over-exposure compared with digital. (Transparency film is another matter.) Knowing that a digital camera will blow out extreme highlights, and working out a strategy, is not the same as having a system that will record it. For instance you can shoot two or more digital images and blend sections of them. (I do this a lot.) By rules you mean abandon the ISO characteristic tone curve and the way the camera is set up to meter typical scenes? In a high contrast scene, you'd have to "underexpose" the overall image to be able to save extreme highlights with the MM. So what would the effective Exposure Index of the MM be in this scenario if you then use software to raise the mid-tones and open up the shadow detail? A lot higher than 320. One could overexpose Plus X by quite a lot and still get a very nice image. My point being if you don't have sufficient highlight detail in a digital image you can't recover it. Yet even over-exposed highlights on b/w film can be burned in. Thus there is at least one technical reason to shoot film in my opinion. There is a difference between the terms "technical" and "practice." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted June 16, 2012 Share #70 Posted June 16, 2012 To argue technical reasons to prefer film today is like arguing the advantages of dentures over your native dentition. Hey, you can take them out and clean them more efficiently than when affixed to your gums! I have not exposed one single frame of film since I received my M9. Which I did promptly as I had staked a place in the queue already before the camera was announced. And I do not feel disadvantaged. The old man from the Hypo Age Hi Lars, While I agree with you that Digital can replace the use of film, it can not easily replace some features of film unless you spend time in post and even then it won't look the same. I personally prefer digital these days for what it offers and I rarely shoot film but sometimes I prefer to shoot film, for a number of reasons, which even for those that in the category of aesthetic, still relate to technical. It will be a great shame the day we lose film and film cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 16, 2012 Share #71 Posted June 16, 2012 I don't disagree with Leica's pricing and targeting the high end market as this may be their best strategy to be profitable. Back in 1971 an M4 and 50 Summicron was about $450. Nikon and Leica camera and lens prices were fairly close. I've posted the numbers previously. Nikon has found ways to keep down prices over time and Leica has not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted June 16, 2012 Share #72 Posted June 16, 2012 Leica has found a way to keep their prices up (and rising), which is a remarkable achievement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 16, 2012 Share #73 Posted June 16, 2012 To argue technical reasons to prefer film today is like arguing the advantages of dentures over your native dentition. Hey, you can take them out and clean them more efficiently than when affixed to your gums! I have not exposed one single frame of film since I received my M9. .... I, too, have not shot film since switching to digital. But I think the analogy presented here is backward, i.e., digital is equivalent to denture, and native to film. We do indeed love the ease and flexibility now of removing and cleaning our dentures. The new teeth are stronger and better, and we can upgrade them every time a new denture technology is released. We initially resisted replacing our cherished originals, but now that the change has been made, we are loving the new versions. All the while, people with their native teeth think all the new ones look fake. And now companies are fighting over each other to sell us on the best denture options. One such company is becoming so expensive that soon only dentists will be able to afford their products. I hear that company just came up with a version that makes the dentures look just like original teeth (after some required home treatment to introduce desired imperfections). BTW, I think the comparison between vinyl records and digital sound is a better analogy. I won't repeat the arguments...technical or otherwise...here. The difference for me, however, is that despite making that transition, I still bring out the vinyl now and then. But that's because I had to decide between keeping a darkroom and maintaining space for a listening room when I made my last house move. The darkroom lost. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 16, 2012 Share #74 Posted June 16, 2012 I find the discussion on Stefan Daniel's words about film someway ideological and not based on reality : imho till film will be available, there will be around thousands of Leica to take pictures with, and dozens of labs that can maintain them in good shape : the fact that maybe Leica can stop, one day, the production of M7/MP isn't really significant. (apart for rich collectors who will struggle, maybe, for the "last 100 MP"... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted June 16, 2012 Share #75 Posted June 16, 2012 Leica is a niche company. We are the niche. Sure many would like to own a Leica who now own Nikanons. I own both. And although I have the money to buy new Leica product, my sense of value simply won't let me. My income and net worth have not doubled as Leica's prices have. There's just no rationalization that I can con myself with that allows me to accept that I should pay twice as much for the same lenses than they cost 4-5 years ago. I couldn't con myself into paying double for a DLux-5 than a Panny LX5. The only new lenses I've bought in the past few years have been CV, which I thought were good values before, but have become stupendous values recently. I really do like my M9 kit a lot better than my Canon kit, because hauling around a 5D and those bazooka lenses is more than I can handle anymore. But if I had to start over today, I would not be looking in Leica's direction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted June 16, 2012 Share #76 Posted June 16, 2012 To argue technical reasons to prefer film today is like arguing the advantages of dentures over your native dentition. Photography is a hobby. I doubt there are very many people who use film who, if they became hard of hearing, would reject a modern in-canal microprocessor hearing-aid in favor of an ear-trumpet on the basis the latter doesn't need batteries. Or, heaven forbid, should they face the amputation of an arm, would choose a hook vs a bionic prosthetic if it were offered to them. In the field of dentistry, and I believe our resident dentists can back this up, most patients who reject implants and permanent bridgework in favor of in-the-glass-at-night dentures do so mainly as a result of comparative cost and/or the fear of added pain and recovery time, not on the basis of a belief that dentures are technically superior. But I reiterate, photography is a hobby. Some people who do woodworking as a hobby use power tools, and some use hand tools exclusively. Some gun enthusiasts are exclusively into muzzle-loaders. There is no right and wrong, just personal preference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 16, 2012 Share #77 Posted June 16, 2012 A thing that bothers me is the statement that Daniels made about Leica having to produce in Germany because otherwise their customer base in the Far East will no longer be attracted by the company's superior quality. If Leica cannot break out of this straightjacket there is simply no way it will be able to avoid charging $8,000 for cameras like the M-Monochrom. This also means that achieving the 1% market share that they're aiming could also be elusive. With these very high prices Leica will simply not be able to reach the volumes that allow the type of modern manufacturing techniques that could bering prices down when manufacturing in Germany. Essentially, they have to produce in a place like Thailand or China if they wish to have lower prices and higher volume. —Mitch/Chiang Mai Scratching the Surface Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 16, 2012 Share #78 Posted June 16, 2012 By rules you mean abandon the ISO characteristic tone curve and the way the camera is set up to meter typical scenes? What I’ve meant is what I have described in a series of articles in LFI (2/2010 through 4/2010). But it boils down to this: If you handle a sensor like it was silver-halide film you are bound to get less than optimal results. Just like you would get suboptimal results if you did use slide film like it was negative film. A sensor isn’t any worse at capturing highlights than the different kinds of film are, but it behaves differently and the photographer must take that into account. You cannot feign ignorance and then blame the results on some supposed deficiency of digital photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 16, 2012 Share #79 Posted June 16, 2012 Why do they sell the MM with software so that you can try and make your MM shots look a bit like they were taken with film? What's the point of that?? Never used that feature, and can't imagine ever wanting to. Between them, LR4 and SEP2 given fantastic access to all sorts of adjustments. I guess the converse argument makes more sense. With film you get one chance to develop the entire strip of negatives, using different developers, different times, different temperatures. Then in the darkroom, you can cut out masks, dodge, burn, and then get out your chemistry set again. Fine if you do this sort of thing a lot, and are current, but a bit of a pain compared to the ease of a digital process. I can imagine the outrage of artists at the original development of this optical/chemical process called photography. Of course, there's something special about the traditional film process in the end result, and the earth really is flat. I get people enjoying film. I'm one of them. But all this nonsense about film being inherently better is self-delusion. If you really can tell the difference between two fine art prints, I'm very happy for you. I simply do not believe that film is any better inherently than a fine art image taken digitally (both wet print, or both printed digitally). It might be different (I doubt there is a film print which you cannot replicate digitally - why is another question) but saying it's always better is a bit of a leap. I like the calm honesty of Stefan Daniels' interviews. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ming Rider Posted June 16, 2012 Share #80 Posted June 16, 2012 Surely at some point, someone is going to raise the question of "what if there isn't an M10 in the pipeline" ? Isn't the M9 the pinnacle of the Digital M and if so, isn't there going to be a whole group of people feeling betrayed and very annoyed through no fault of Leica ? At no point have they indicated that an M10 is imminent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.