Well put.
I don't understand why people have to get so heated over what others say, but I admit I do too at times. I have used digital in my profession for 16 years now, I have seen it change a bunch and to be honest, it only became appealing to me when it stopped looking like video and emerged full frame, everything else just sucked raw eggs in my opinion.
But....I still put film at the forefront of my work, it is my style, it is something I personally bond well with and if someone were to ask me which is more appealing for business and for pleasure, I am going to have to say film.
So in some ways, digital is *not* photography to me, it is simply a necessary evil in the business of gathering and distributing imagery for press ready applications. I don't get any more keepers with either medium, I don't think film limits me in low light, I know how to make images happen, I am a photographer, not a digital fanatic.
I use each medium for it's strengths and try not to find fault in it's downfalls. The introduction of a proper format Leica M digital body that does not need corrective IR filtration makes my M system a LOT more valuable to me. I can now pack a "Oskar's One Day Bag" with an M6, M9, 28 Summicron, 35 Summilux, 50 Summilux, 90 Tele-Elmarit, extra M9 battery, Gossen Digisix meter, two extra SD cards, 12 rolls of Kodachrome and a cable release and go to town, literally!
That F___ing ROCKS, end of story!
I have to disagree. I think that it was just a wrong choice of words, and not words we need to be offended about. He's just a firm believer in the film medium, and has probably had little experience or negative experience with digital....or just love the look of film. Can you really blame him? People on forums are always sooking about how they want a camera to emulate film.
I think those that are quick to attack film advocates are just as bad as those quick to dismiss digital as a viable and quality medium for taking still photographs. I also think that a lot of 'radical' digital advocates are inexperienced in photography (due to little use of film) and therefor have little empathy or understanding of why people have an attachment to film.
Remember the days of taking an image, and looking for the next...rather than taking a picture, then NEEDING to look at the LCD just to 'be sure' you 'got it?' Digital has made photographers, including myself feel somewhat more insecure at times, and less patient. I can't count the pictures I've missed (not including the ones I don't know I missed) by looking at the LCD when I should be concentrating on finding the next picture.
There's no need to be offended by his comments, and if you are, you're probably just feeling a little insecure by the fact that someone has a different opinion to yours, and you just don't like it. So back to topic....whether or not there is an M9 and it's awesome/bad, there is always going to be those that believe in film, a medium that has been used for years by many people on this forum, so their opinions, though different mean just as much on this forum than on any other forum, film or digital.
From a converted digital guy who hasn't forgotten where he came from.
