MAGNUM hasnt given up on film!

[mick_canis]

You people are stupid.

 

That said, if you notice she said that they use film for their personal work, the stuff that means the most to them, but they use digital for what they can get away with. Film is better quality than digital. Digital has its puposes

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<I>Mick Canis , feb 11, 2004; 07:09 a.m.

You people are stupid. </I><P> Right. Thanks for rreminding us, but it's been

pointed out to us on a daily basis.

[robert_clark]

Nice to know Mick. I thought we were all just ignorant.

[Brad_]

I love the elitists, blessed with special vision taking comfort in their perceived superiority.

No doubt some really deep-rooted internal issues still tugging on them - that's where

manipulation can be found...

[preston_merchant]

Xinbad, this forum is for Leica Sahibs.

[steve_swinehart]

I'm always mystified by the film/digital "debate" rife with cherry picked "facts" and/or singular observations that are trotted out to masquerade as facts to support someone's personal viewpoint.

The digiheads can hardly seem to wait for film to "die" so that their personal choice is affirmed as being "right" and/or "the best" choice - as they look back over their shoulders with a snear on their face at the poor, confused, Luddite film users.

 

On the flip side, are the filmaholics that want to offer every proof that their choice of film proves it isn't dead - it only smells bad. They plead their case to anyone who feigns an interest in a "debate" that has no meaning.

 

Really, who cares? What's the point of the debate? I don't get it. Digital will displace film as the medium of choice for many uses but not ALL uses. So what?

 

And, so what if film becomes only a "niche" market? That doesn't prove that digital is "better" - only that market demands make it a more popular choice. But, again, let's not confuse popular choice as a type of metric that in any way measures, equates, confirms it as being "better."

 

Why? Because "better" is a value judgement based upon a single person's unique usage requirements.

 

I use both mediums and have my own thoughts on both - and they're meaningless to anyone else as it comes down to a personal choice. I'm sure my personal choice makes no difference (nor should it) to anyone elses' personal choice or aesthetics.

 

Each medium has its own unique merits that can be used or exploited for a certain end. Whether the merit is cheaper, faster, easier, better looking, more artful, is a usage choice that one makes as his/her personal choice. But there seems to be a confusion of translating a unique merit into a metric to measure "better than."

 

Neither medium is "better" than the other - only different. It's the choice of differences and how to use them for best effect that should govern one's choice of a photographic medium. Equipment choice doesn't make you a better photographer. Knowing what equipment to apply to best effect for a certain imaging situation MIGHT make you a better photographer - but neither is a substitute for a unique, singular vision applied to a subject.

 

Why not argue the merits of chocolate ice cream versus french vanilla - it would be about as meaningful.

[octavio bustard]

I agree Steve- film IS better!!!!!

[preston_merchant]

You could view Magnum's film v. digital declaration as evidence that its photographers are involved in far less spot news than other agencies. You don't see the Magnum credit very often in the daily newspapers. When it appears, Magnum work finds space more frequently in magazines and books, which impose less of a time-burden.

 

You could also view the declaration in view of the fact that Magnum photographers tend to be pretty old, with their careers already made and largely behind them. Why should these guys change their cameras now?

 

You could view the declaration as evidence of Magnum's staunch traditionalist conservative view--which is why it is a boutique agency, despite its hallowed history.

[shambrick007]

�Digital will displace film as the medium of choice for many uses but not ALL uses. So what? �<p>Because our cool, esoteric, expensive, snobbish, �look at me, I�m using one� Leicas will be rendered useless�.that�s what.

[steve_swinehart]

"Because our cool, esoteric, expensive, snobbish, �look at me, I�m using one� Leicas will be rendered useless�.that�s what."

 

You know, I have owned a Leica for 14 years. In 14 years NO ONE has walked up to me and said, "Wow!!!! A LEICA," or anything even close to that. As far as I can tell, most people think it's a $49.95 point-and-shoot. That's fine with me. The less I'm noticed while photographing, the better I like it.

 

If it's a "look at me" factor - for real - then the large format crowd has that all locked up as it's darn hard to ignore a guy hiding under a focusing cloth. One of the reasons I rarely shoot large format anymore - you become a spectator sport for everyone in the vicinity of where you're trying to work.

 

If YOU think it's the "look at me" factor, then I'd suggest using a Leica WITH a focusing cloth - heck, I'd being looking at you .... I find really strange people entertaining.

 

But, should you INSIST on being snobbish, you're chance will come in 2-3 years when Leica releases a digital "M" series .... so, no worries...your eletist yearnings will be serviced well into the digital transistion.

[cd thacker]

I belong to a club that is so elitist it only has a single member, me. The dues are high but the ammenities outstanding. And, oh, the view.

[cd thacker]

And I guess I have to concede that the term "the masses" is repugnant, not good for much, and not one I would use.

[ilkka_nissila]

That's true - a Nikon F5 or EOS digital or whatever gets a lot of "whoa ... what's going on" from bystanders while nobody pays any attention to a Leica ... they don't know what it is, and that's good.

[__jon__]

>Mick Canis , feb 11, 2004; 07:09 a.m.

You people are stupid.

 

Is that 'Canis' as in ryhmes with 'anus'?

[douglas k.]

Without "corporate greed" there would be neither film NOR digital cameras, nor cars, nor much clothing, housing, food, etc. Greed (i.e., profit motive) gets things produced. Do you think Kodak produces film out of altruism?

 

As for those "ignorant masses" buying digital cameras: Is it really ignorant to prefer products which produce comparable output in a fashion that is faster, easier to utilize, and probably lower-cost in the long-run?

[stephen_w.]

Michael Mitchell was working with real wolves when he couldn't go to college from 14 to 16 (huh, why not?!) and figuratively, with us, hence: Canis (canine). Sad.

[octavio bustard]

You're a funny guy CD. How do I join the club?

[cd thacker]

Tim, you're already an honorary member (along with a few others on and off this forum). I usually reserve actual attendance for women, but there is a floor marked <i>platonic</i>, so feel free to drop in for dinner any time. And bring our pal Paolo if you like.

[bobtodrick]

Mick Canis <You people are stupid>...and you're a d**khead...so there!

[john_tencza2]

I know a lot of friends who ran out a bought digital cameras,

then the next year they had to run out aand buy the better more pixel camera that came out for the same price as their one year old digital,

and so did I myself buy the leica digilux 1 -and now there's the d2, and so on.

digital camera's ,like computers lose their value in no time , analog

always keeps its value. That must tell you somethign about the dig,

revolution.

[andy_piper2]

To - ahemm - get back to Tim's post:

 

A large percentage of the Magnum shooters prefer Leicas (or at least RFs) for their work, especially the personal work. Since there is no digital equivalent to a Leica*, it doesn't surprise me at all that they are sticking with the machines they love and the film that goes with them.

 

It MAY be interesting to see what the response is once there is a reasonably "rangefinder-like" digital substitute. I doubt whether, e.g., Eliot Erwitt will bother to switch, simply because film will easily see him through the rest of his shooting life. The younger folks (and there are Magnum associates in their 20's) may well adopt digital if/when the cameras suit their tastes.

 

*at least until either May 2004 or Sept. 2006, depending.

[mark_lloyd1]

crikey !!

 

It makes me laugh a lot to see threads like this.

 

 

Its simple really if you want to take great shots and produce wonderfull

images you have 2 choices.

 

 

Film or digital.

 

 

Which is better - who cares!!

 

 

Which is more cost effective - simple film!! (when you take into account

total capital outlay and depreciation)

 

 

Which is instant - Digital but thats what you pay the premium for.

 

 

Which is better quality (sharper etc..) - Film

 

 

Which brand - Thats personal prefference, they all have their pros and

cons and only by evaluating what you want can you hope to find which

brand fullfills that.

 

 

Digital is, and will be for the foreseable future a gadget. Unless you are a

pro with clients who demand it, digital is far more expensive to work

with.

 

 

As with all gadgets it is expensive and will continues to have new

enhancements for the foreseable future.

 

 

As with most things you need to analyse what you really want to

achieve and what the true costs are.

 

 

The nearest parallel to digital cameras are computers. As with cameras

they have been subject to over spec for a long while.

 

 

Think about it most people only use a computer to surf the net, do their

accounts and type the odd letter. You don't need much power to do this,

the same is true of a camera.

 

 

However if you can tell everyone that they should process their digital

images at home on their home PC now you can sell millions of PC

upgrades.

 

 

Most people see absolutely no cost saving or benefit by using digital,

they have no ability or wish to become image processing experts they

just want pictures to show others.

 

 

If they want to put them into digital format then they could just have

them scanned and tweaked at a pro lab. This would still be far cheaper.

 

 

I guess what I am saying is whatever you buy and whatever brand you

choose is a personal thing, led in no small part by carefull marketing.

 

 

Don't get suckered in, decide what you want to create and then choose

the equipment to create those images.

 

 

If you have equipment that meets those requirements then it can only

become obsolite when your requirements change, not just because a

manufacturer brings out a new model.

 

 

If you want to just collect equipment thats fine but if you want to be a

photographer then buy just what you need to achieve your goal.

 

 

Just to put this in context I have worked as a pro for quite a while and

even though I sometimes get asked for digital I am still film based.

 

 

If the client wants digitised images then I can have the slides/negs scanned

which my clients have been happy with.

 

 

I occasionally use high end scanning backs for certain clients but I hire

this equipment as required.

 

 

Working this way suits me and has saved me tens of thousands in capital

outlay.

 

 

The client always gets what they want and they are happy.

 

 

I have seen a number of pro studios go under because they switched to

digital too early and incurred huge capital costs only to find the

equipment still didn't deliver and that they also had to budget for huge

amounts of in house processing time that the client wouldn't pay for.

 

 

When the time is right I will switch to digital once the current

development curve settles down and I can buy equipment that I know

meets my requirements. At that point I don't care what bells and whistles

the manufacturers add to their products because I will have invested in

what meets my requirement so for me it can't become obsolite.

 

 

Just my thoughts you don't have to agree.