Leica users & collectors: are we REALLY going to buy the DM8?

[andrewlamb]

Lot of noise in those Soviet pictures so it must be a plate glass digital that was used and it

was definitely not full frame.

[________1]

What about playboy bunnies, the centerfold. Now that's shot on 8x10 film, so it *must* be reliable!

[Robin Smith]

I have no plans to buy an M8. While there is still considerable refinement left to be done in digital cameras, I am not paying the price. Once they have reached a shakedown and all sensors and software are essentially equivalent then I may be more interested. This will probably take 5 - 10 years I reckon. I am not a professional - if I turn professional then naturally I would have to buy a digital kit, but my whole photographic life has been with film and I am used and like it. In fact, personally, I really like my current film/scanning/digital printing hybrid system, in many ways this represents for me the best of both worlds.

[Robin Smith]

The Soviet era manipulations are very often pretty poor and obvious and they often only really got away with it (assuming they did really of course) because these images were for print publications only (originals were strictly guarded) and of inherently low quality. Of course it is entirely possible to retounch prints and negatives to exacting standards, but it is nevertheless quite difficult to be entirely convincing, whereas with Photoshop the cloning or retouching process is very easy indeed. So I do think there is a distinction between the digital and the traditional approach which, although not watertight, contains a good deal of truth. My point is that Ben may not be completely right, but there is still a big grain of truth in his argument.

[vivek iyer]

<i>I just wanted to point that out but also highlight the digital process eliminates the distiction between the craft and the product. It also suffers from an inherent lack of credibility. What I mean is that photographers who use digital workflow will always need to express what type and extent of digital manipulation has taken place.</i>

<p>

<b>IF</b> this is true then film rules, <i><b>forever</b></i>.

<p>

But it is false

[johnmarkpainter]

Just to Pile on......

 

That is funny. I suppose if you are a traditional printer who doesn't know how to correct

for bad exposure, Crop, Dodge, Burn, Bleach, retouch, Sandwich Negs, print composites,

Tilt the easle to change perspective (I'm sure I am missing several hundred others)

 

<<I just wanted to point that out but also highlight the digital process eliminates the

distiction between the craft and the product. It also suffers from an inherent lack of

credibility. What I mean is that photographers who use digital workflow will always need to

express what type and extent of digital manipulation has taken place.>>

[terry_rory]

" It also suffers from an inherent lack of credibility. What I mean is that photographers who use digital workflow will always need to express what type and extent of digital manipulation has taken place."

 

Only if the people looking at the photos are asking such questions.

 

If they ARE asking about the extent of digital manipulation used, then they are NOT looking at photos.

[film rules]

By "inherently reliable" I did not mean to suggest no manipulation, including the examples above. Even the examples above are inherently reliable because the manipulation is readily apparent.

 

The difference is hand craft versus machine craft. I know some will argue that there is hand craft or skill in digital manipulation (which is certainly true), but I believe a lower value is assigned to it. For example, given the choice of purchasing a high-qualtiy FB print or a high-quality inkjet print that are visually and otherwise identical (save for perhaps a tactile quality), which would you rather own? Most if not all of us will naturally gravitate to the FB print. Don't deny it.

[film rules]

Trevor, one can be "looking" at the photos and still wonder or question about the method used to achieve it. With digital, there is always, always, always the question about whether the photograph is the result of the photographer's skill or tenacity, or a manipulation. The possibilities for seamless, imperceptable manipulation are endless. With traditional, save for few exceptions like those above, the question is simply not natural.

[john_camp]

"It also suffers from an inherent lack of credibility. What I mean is that photographers who

use digital workflow will always need to express what type and extent of digital

manipulation has taken place."

 

A little more true than is obvious. Remember the LA Times reporter who was fired for

Photoshopping an Iraq war photo to make it better? He was only caught because he did

some dumb things -- the art of manipulation hadn't been thought through enough. But it

has been now...

 

In the past, it was not possible to do this kind of on-the-fly front-line change, when

nobody knew but the photographer. Now it is. In my high school year book, many, many,

many years ago, we had a photo of a football end about to catch a pass. The shot was at

night, with a black sky, the ball illuminated by lights. The problem was, that even though

the ball was caught, in the photo it was too far away from the end's hands to make a good

shot. No problem. Cut 'n paste, move the football, reshoot and print. Looked fairly decent,

and now the ball was right off the end's fingertips. But it took quite a bit of work, paint,

etc., and even then, if you looked at if for a while, it was kinda funky (the ball was the

wrong size, for one thing.) Moving the ball today could be done before you left the football

field, and it would be essentially undetectable...So there's something to this point of view.

Maybe not too much, though.

 

JC

[terry_rory]

Then I would argue that you are not looking at the photo.

 

If you are looking at the material and the method and the meduim, then the message will escape you.

 

Before digital came along I expect a few closed minds only wanted to know if the photographer used a Leica or a Nikon or a Rollei or large format. Nothing else mattered.

 

To some others back then the very idea of an exhibition of colour photographs in a prestigious museum was horrifying. Unable to see past material and method and medium so the message (and the meaning) escapes such people.

[deardorff8x10]

I have found that the main problem with digital is dynamic range. BW film (when scanned

especially, since paper has less range than a scanner in my experience) has around 10-12

stops, depending on film, developer, etc., while digital is 5-6 six stops. Color reversal film

has less than BW, but more than digital. This sort of determines my choice of capture

medium. Digital seems to have less noise, but has a linear response to brightness vs. the

curve (i.e. toe and shoulder) of film.

[film rules]

Alright, another example. Think about a photographer like Keith Carter. If he was shooting digitally, then the whole quality of his work is called to question. It is not necessarily the work of a talented photographer or printer, but perhaps the work of a snot-nosed computer jockey.

[marc_bergman1]

"Michael Waldron , aug 02, 2006; 07:00 p.m.

I have found that the main problem with digital is dynamic range. BW film (when scanned especially, since paper has less range than a scanner in my experience) has around 10-12 stops, depending on film, developer, etc., while digital is 5-6 six stops. "

 

Michael,

 

Care to cite a source for these dynamic range figures?

[marc_bergman1]

"It is not necessarily the work of a talented photographer or printer, but perhaps the work of a snot-nosed computer jockey."

 

Ben,

 

Thank you for posting this. It gives us a much better understanding of your fears. It is actually quite common fear. Most people seem to be afraid to acknowledge this.

[terry_rory]

"....perhaps the work of a snot-nosed computer jockey."

 

Well at least that is out in the open now. I actually thought Ben had some rationale behind his objections to digital at one point.

[Brad_]

<I> If he was shooting digitally, then the whole quality of his work is called to question.</I>

<P>

 

Why? Unless it's his equipment and process that ultimately moves you. Rather than his

vision.

[lb-]

I'd really like a digital olympus pen half frame.

[EricM]

i'm looking forward to just giving a mental command to my sunglasses to take a pic so i can be a snot-nosed computer jockey when i get home.

[terry_rory]

Mm ght yuo foty yiklm neeb !! Beb yoi in a cmplhgt arzthyoip !!!

 

(Sorry my keyboard was full of snot)

[al_kaplan1]

COLOR film? When did they start making that? Is it available in standard cassettes that will fit in my Leicas? AMAZING! Next thing you know they'll be making cameras that don't even need film! Damn!

[andy_piper2]

"When I handle my MP (or any M cameras for that matter...) I really feel I am "taking" a photograph. Finally, I spot a subject, I concentrate on it, I focus it, I shoot, I really enjoy the act..."

 

Luigi, I enjoy every one of these aspects of Leica rangefinders. I see no reason why the M8 digital rangefinder should change these feelings one bit. Look through the VF, swing the lens to bring the two images together, 'click!' What changes?

 

"Are we really going to replace our beloved M film cameras with the new Leica Digital M?"

 

Well, in my case a Sony R1 has ALREADY replaced my film Leicas - now I just want to replace the Sony with a beloved digital M and get that feeling back (plus some lenses that will actually shoot at f/2 and f/1.4).

 

"Film gives you more pleasure..."

 

Not me. I shoot pictures with a camera...what's inside it is immaterial until after the fact. And even then - I generally find scratches, dust, fuzzy corners and grain less than pleasant.

 

"...and probably more quality than when shooting in digital?"

 

Sorry, my Sony R1 digicam delivers better quality (when the lens is behaving) than scans from any film in my Leica M's.

 

The biggest favor I can possibly do for my Leica M lenses is give them a 10 Mpixel sensor in place of jelly-coated plastic scanned through a Nikon lens - in which case they will far outperform the Sony/Zeiss zoom.

 

"Are we really going to buy probably the very first Leica M that will depreciate in value within a short period of time?"

 

Shouldn't this be posted on PublicAccountants.net instead of Photo.net? Cameras are tools - I buy them based on how well they allow me to take pictures.

 

So, if you are going to buy the new Digital M, then why?

 

To get everything I get from a film Leica (size, weight, lenses, viewfinder, rangefinder) with a better imaging technology inside.

[mario_mazariegos]

No interest whatsoever, obsolescence will come soooo fast.....

[kevin m.]

"i'm looking forward to just giving a mental command to my sunglasses to take a pic..."

 

Sunglasses? Hell with that. When I go in for lazik surgery, I'm having a digital implant

installed. ;-)

[film rules]

This "its all about the image" attitude is BS. That's like saying fake plastic shutters on a house are just as good as the real thing because they look the same.

 

So all you "all about the image" folks better start calling yourselves software manipulators, digital artists, computer geeks, IT personnel, whatever. Just stop using the term photographer for your evil digital hackery.

 

Digital-Schmigital - FILM RULES!!!!!