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

maggieo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Amen to the above!

I continue to use B&W film for many reasons. High on the list is the fact that Tri-X costs $3.99USD per rollx plus $0.40USD per roll to develop at home while a Monochrome-M body costs $7950USD plus shipping & insurance ( of course, you really need a second body as a backup so double that price) .

I guess I will leave the M9 and M/M bodies to Seal and Brad Pitt. Meanwhile back at the ranch, my M4-P and MP bodies keep on ticking like an A. Lang's & Sohne Cabaret Tourbillon. :D
 
If I would be totally objective about the subject, I would say: For photographs that "pass the quality criteria" for web images, I would just use a Nokia PureView 808. I however like to tinker with different developers, make analogue prints, carry a M3, M4 rapidwinder and a M8 ( for digital polaroids, in B&W mode, to be honest). The M-M is not going to change my view. maybe the "M" will.
 
"Technical" is a weasel word when used in the context of producing art; Where there are many techniques that produce many different effects - with different qualities inherent...
So "technically" speaking, from a "quality" point of view, film is not only useful, but as justified as any other technique if it produces the effect desired by the photographer. As long as film supplies the qualities photographers look for in film, film is technically filling a real need.

Unless of course your job is to peddle digital cameras and mystique.
 
tunalegs said:
"Technical" is a weasel word when used in the context of producing art; Where there are many techniques that produce many different effects - with different qualities inherent...
So "technically" speaking, from a "quality" point of view, film is not only useful, but as justified as any other technique if it produces the effect desired by the photographer. As long as film supplies the qualities photographers look for in film, film is technically filling a real need. . .
Click to expand...
YES!

Cheers,

R.
 
Mr. Daniel is quite correct with regard to the MONOCHROM.

There are "Technical reasons" offered by MONOCHROM use that afford advantages over B&W film.

1. Noiseless output up to ISO 640. This is due to not requiring RGB filter increased A-D gains. No AA filter either. ALL the useful photons are recorded. Not unlike silver halide–but without reciprocity loses.
2. No resolution losses due to Bayer RGB filtration matrix. True 18MP results.
3. Immediate imagery due to the absence of wet-mount drum scanning for optimum digitization.

Low light operation is a domain in which the MONOCHROM can excel where film might struggle.

Of course, a dominant barrier to this advanced technology is equipment cost.

I'm no LEICAMAN (tm) either.

I'd try the FM3a+NOCT+(EK)P3200 before the MONOCHROM
 
Hey....yea.... So now you are able to buy our $8000 camera (plus lens of your choice) and technically it is able to produce as fine an image as any old film M (plus lens of your choice) for not quite $8000. But why on earth would you want to do that.
 
The point here is that film cannot compete with the MONOCHROM in low light.

This is because film isn't noiseless at ISO 640 and the MONOCHROM is noiseless.

Indeed, digital color sensors are severely limited in B&W applications because of the required A to D UP gain.
 
You know one thing that puzzles me about the monochrom, is when it comes to a print you're still not getting anything like what you'd get with a silver gelatin print. So basically you have a b/w image that looks good on a computer screen, or a b/w image that looks good as a digital print - when compared to other digital b/w prints. But what if you like normal, optical enlargements, printed with wet chemicals in a darkroom? :|9 Doesn't seem like it'd cut it.
 
Erwin Puts wrote this on Facebook:
"I loaded my MP3 with Spur Orthopan microfilm and made a resolution test. At f/2 I recorded an unbelievable 160 line pairs/mm (320 lines per mm) in a low contrast situation. Does anybody still claim that digital capture is the superior way to test a lens? The Leica MM with the same lens again at f/2, was capable of 60 - 70 line pairs/mm."
http://www.facebook.com/erwinputs
 
Photography, specially Bw and reportage is not a matter of technical or resolution to me.
The new digital cameras are amazing in resolution, noise,etc,etc,..but the film has soul.
The process , the way you take photos, and how the film captures the light, even the mistakes..all that contribute to create a kind of image that are different, unique, imperfect if you like, more human too.
Just mi opinion, I use digital only for professional reasons, film to enjoy photography.
 
This thread has been running sometime and we are able to see results of the Monochrom. Like every digital, there are the highlight catastrophes. Foreheads in the sun, look like melting wax. Sure one can shoot in light, one almost cannot see. Great. Why? Low light and low contrast is not a happy place to make photos. The price of the new Leicas is awful. I like many people see no point in expensive cameras that need looking after, finally being unserviceable due to the with-holding of needed parts.
A high resolution phone camera is a lot more popular than actual cameras..
i prefer a P/S compact digital BUT still shoot film. i don't use a cell phone/mobile.
 
What about being able to shoot without batteries?

The thing is, I'm really not interested in a Digital Leica M, it would be like buying a gold Swatch to me.
It's surprising to me the ratio of film to digital Leica M sales for that reason, although lack of a competitor might be the reason for that.
 
Well then, where is that 20 megapixel digital projector that allows me to project one image after another from these technically advanced bazillion megapixel cameras?

Until then, I will happily stick with my film cameras and dear old slide projectors.
 
Sounds like he is selling something. Something even more shockingly expensive than before the Leica prices tripped out on LSD. Are they still pretending that the Leica digicams are going to hold their prices as they hope we will believe? The mechanical Leicas are jewels, worth the high cost. And then there is smoke and mirrors.
 
maggieo said:
The art market has a fetish about materials and that alone is reason enough for an artist to use archaic methods and materials.
Click to expand...

A good point. No one in the serious art market would consider the picture taken with digital Leica Monochrom as an authentic B/W photography.
 
Actually, the exclusive choice of the word "Technical" leads me to believe that he's actually defending the validity and relevance of film photography. :D

... either that or he's just put on-the-spot to sell more digital camera.
 
Sad, yes, but true.
I agree that shooting film is "emotional" more than anything.

Qualitywise film does not have the leads against digital.

You could also say that sensors are for the brain and film is for the soul.
 
I would say that film is still there to remind us of the talents that silently pass away after the ease of digital sets in. In film you will have to take care of anything at the time of shot, horizontals, composition, exposure and many more. With digital you can correct everything post shot on the computer. It is not really a problem, but it is always good to have something to remind you of the basis of good photography.
I would say that trying to get things well done on film helps a lot on digital too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom