"There is not really a technical reason to shoot film." Stefan Daniel from Leica

[rolleistef]

"There is not really a technical reason to shoot film." Stefan Daniel from Leica

"There is not really a technical reason to shoot film." Thus saith Stefan Daniel from Leica, in an inteview for Theme. What do you think? The question has been askes plenty of time but I think it could be interesting to discuss "[his] point of view"

"Mr. Daniel, you think photographers using film will continue to stick to it? What are Leicas intentions regarding their film cameras? First of all, we’re still producing M7 and MP cameras. We’re producing them because there is a demand for it — small, but quite stable. As long as this demand exists we will also be making these cameras. Technically speaking, from a quality point of view, there is no real reason to stick with film. Especially if you take an M Monochrom which is producing beautiful black-and-white pictures, one of the last domains of film, black-and-white film. There is not really a technical reason to shoot film. But an M Monochrom doesn’t smell film and doesn’t give you the limitation of having only 36 frames in your camera. There are still some emotional reasons why to use film. The people using it right now are doing it for that exact reason. They don’t do it by hazard, but on purpose."


the.me/interview-with-stefan-daniel-leica-director-product-management-next-target-non-leica-users/


What do you think?

 

[Roger Hicks]

When I saw him at Arles, Stefan maintained that the M9M is better than film.

Much as I like and respect the dear man, I can't agree.

And, as he says in the report above, not all reasons are 'technical'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jwicaksana]

I don't know anything about technical aspects of BW films, but it sounds like one of Mr. Daniel's job is to promote the new M Monochrome 😀

 

[leicapixie]

The biggest obstacle to a Leica digital are all those M-film cameras out there. They will last almost indefinitely with the skilled labor of independent technicians. Price another hurdle..
We already "hear" certain M-8's cannot be maintained.. Later it will be M-9 when the climate justifies it.
The best part is in 2000 i added a M6 new. Already digital was way "better".
How many high end models from Nikon,Canon,Pentax and Minolta/Sony since then..All "getting" better. i think digital is great but film gives a very different look. If a Director of Leica cannot see that, we know why it's Leica not Leitz.
In a test by Asahi magazine, Japan(no link to Pentax)a test was done with M-9, D-800 and a M6 with film. I could see no differences at all! I looked more carefully and more methodically. Yes! A black form in front of image was total black in the digitals. The film recorded surface textures and a slight variation in tones.
i have decided not to use B/W film unless my scanning improves substantially or i return to Darkroom printing.Modern film is the quality problem factor..

 

[maggieo]

There is no technical reason to continue with film. He's correct. There are however, aesthetic, financial, and personal reasons to continue to work with archaic methods and materials.

The art market has a fetish about materials and that alone is reason enough for an artist to use archaic methods and materials.

 

[craygc]

What a load of rubbish ...nothing more than marketing! And this: Technically speaking, from a quality point of view, there is no real reason to stick with film. Especially if you take an M Monochrom which is producing beautiful black-and-white pictures, one of the last domains of film, black-and-white film, which implies that anybody should be able to just rush out and buy an MM; and you can never compare "A" to "B" without defining the criteria on which to evaluate first ...and 'quality' as a word is a loaded word as in itself it presupposes a singular definition, which is false logic.

 

[Turtle]

He's there to sell new cameras and most sales are going to be digital. I suspect they make next to nothing off film Ms due to the tiny volume and would rather just stop.

There are still many technical reasons to shoot B&W film:

Dynamic range is vast if you need it to be. Dramatically wider than a digital M.
The MM is good, but without extensive work, it does not give the same look as classic B&W films. It looks like medium format Fuji Acros, but more digital. For me, 'the look' of a print is important and using film gets me quickly and easily to where I want to go from that point of view. The notion that you can just batch process files thru Silver Efex and get your 'Tri-X' look working well in each case is sheer fantasy.

The MM does have quite a bit to offer the B&W film user, but it is not the same thing and the lack of highlight recovery is a major drawback for quick shooting in scenes where you have hot highlights etc. With film, you can flash the paper, burn using low filter grades etc all to recover what you could not foresee at the time of capture. This is hugely important and I would also consider it a technical consideration.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Bear in mind too that when the Leica first came out, it had to contend with 'real' photographers who said that nothing could replace half-plate for proper photography. This could be seen as being in the same tradition.

Cheers,

R.

 

[leicapixie]

Stefan Daniels must/has/needs to say this line!
Darn if you get hold of a TLR Rolleiflex, pop in a roll of 120 B/W film, say $5~8 you are going to more than justify NOT changing to a MM $8000! This was true in 2002 when i was shown the Medium Format Phase One $40,000..A roll of film equal to task. i was not invited back..
Seeing this is the RFF forum then the Fuji/Bessa/Mamiya RF's are a good choice.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I think he is just stating the obvious, that Leica's future is digital not film. His statements on the use of film and film M production seems to support that. You can agree or disagree with the bit about using film but there it is from Leica's POV.

It is obvious too that the production of film Ms will at some point have to cease but when is anyone's guess. Only Leica knows at what point the market for those will become too small to cater to and still make some profit.

Just the way it is and no point in getting upset about it. People should go buy that brand new Leica film M to show your support. That is about the only positive way of doing it.

Bob

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I neither know nor care about any technical reasons why I should (or should not) still use film. My decision is not based on any rational or logical basis, it is completely subjective and I'm assuming that Stefan Daniel is doing what his employers wants him to do - promote the Leica brand and optimise sales of their very expensive digital "M" cameras.

All of that said, I would love to own an M9 Monochrom. My decision not to do so is highly technical and objective - I have insufficient funds.

 

[btgc]

There are no technical reasons to do photography at all, except some limited applications like evidence, security etc. Product pictures can be made in computers, fashion - too. Consumers will not even notice this aren't photographs. Really, why ever bother with photography?

 

[Turtle]

This is not true. If I did not do photography voluntarily, I am sure I would end up in front of a psychiatrist who would prescribe it!

There are no technical reasons to do photography at all, except some limited applications like evidence, security etc. Product pictures can be made in computers, fashion - too. Consumers will not even notice this aren't photographs. Really, why ever bother with photography?

 

[btgc]

This is not true. If I did not do photography voluntarily, I am sure I would end up in front of a psychiatrist who would prescribe it!

Prozac and such stuff is easier and cheaper....let's say, more rational than messing with walking, framing and what else follows that. Simply no reason not go fast route. With chemicals, you also participate in cashflow instead of idling somewhere with your camera. Just like constantly upgrading gear is good for industries.

 

[Turtle]

OK, well this thread is now off topic...

 

[rolleistef]

that's sad 🙂

What I would point out is that people shooting film don't shoot it just because "it's film" - except the film-buying hipster at Colette on Rue du Fgb Saint Honoré in Paris, which by the way sells the cheapest 120 film you could think of.

The colour, and moreover b&w rendition you get from a film isn't easily reproducible from a digital sensor, without heavy post producing. And also, unlike computers, film never destroyed your eyes.

 

[Nikkor AIS]

Digital cameras are here today .. gone tomorrow.

film is photography...

 

[jschrader]

like vinyl

like vinyl

20 years ago vinyl was dead, no "technical reason" not to switch to CDs. Now CDs are dying and many still hear vinyl.

It may be the same. One "non-technical" reason for film is that You can get good cameras for no money, and glass too (well, not Leica).

For the decline of the price of an M9, once the M10 is out, You can shoot much film.

 

[sepiareverb]

Bear in mind too that when the Leica first came out, it had to contend with 'real' photographers who said that nothing could replace half-plate for proper photography. This could be seen as being in the same tradition.

Cheers,

R.

Ah you beat me to it Roger. 🙂

Technically no. But there are indeed other reasons for some of us.

 

[Photo_Smith]

No technical reason? So if I shoot a 8x10 Gandolfi could that be considered a technical reason? Possibly I like shooting my Rollei TLR because of the square format VF could that be a technical reason?

Lastly there probably isn't a technical reason to make love to my wife either.....

The guys just another salesman.