Why pay at least 4 times as much for a digital.Why have a poorer quality image.Why buy a camera which in a few months is out of date and has little resale value.Why take away the creative ability of photography and replace it with Computer Science.Are we loosing our way .the creation of a image being the ultimate goal,by any means.The world likes truth, is digital replacing it with fantasy.In the future will we look at a photograph and wonder if it really the truth;ALL IMPACT LOST.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 27, 2002

Answers

Why pay at least 4 times as much for a digital.Why have a poorer quality image.Why buy a camera which in a few months is out of date and has little resale value.

The quality of digital is sufficient for many uses. The savings on film and processing and the streamlining of the workflow make digital capture a more economical solution for a number of applications.

Why take away the creative ability of photography and replace it with Computer Science.

Digital is simply a different process; it does not eliminate the role of creativity.

The world likes truth, is digital replacing it with fantasy.In the future will we look at a photograph and wonder if it really the truth;ALL IMPACT LOST.

Utter nonsense. The distinction between truth and fantasy has little to do with the difference between film and digital.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 27, 2002.

The quality of digital is sufficient for many uses. The savings on film and processing and the streamlining of the workflow make digital capture a more economical solution for a number of applications.

I would like to thank you personally for the quality of your answers without any flame.

Quality of image is important...why bother buying a Leica.Should i be happy with a cheap nikon with sig 28-300 if quality is not important.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 27, 2002.

Digital is simply a different process; it does not eliminate the role of creativity

Digital encourages the manipulation of the photograph,indeed it expounds it as a good thing, a improvement...and it is so easy.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 27, 2002.

Digital imaging is just starting to find out what it can do, the sky's the limit. Whether in the field or the "darkroom", there is always manipulation. While we argue aesthetics and ethics, I expect the most naive to give digital some direction and voice. Maybe us old timers will have to relearn and see differently, still, this could be fun.

-- Mike Barber (hax@htc.net), April 27, 2002.

Utter nonsense. The distinction between truth and fantasy has little to do with the difference between film and digital.

Utter nonense.Why do you come out with semi- flame statements,it makes you sound some sort of demi-god of photography.Not flaming you.

I disagree digital by its very nature encourages manipulation of the truth by claiming a better photograph.The blue moon over New York published as serious photo.It encourages photographers to create fantasy mind images rather than creating the greatest images of them all..the real world.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 27, 2002.

With a scanner and Photoshop, you could put many moons over many New Yorks. Why does the original medium matter?

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 27, 2002.

Why pay at least 4 times as much for a digital.Why have a poorer quality image.Why buy a camera which in a few months is out of date and has little resale value.

(Sigh...) I wonder about this myself. I guess the answer is that the world is full of dumb photographers who want to think they are hip and with-it, man.

Sit down and do the maths and you'll quickly figure out that going digital capture means doubling your costs, mainly because you have to upgrade your camera + storage devices every 12 months to keep up with the pack.

IMO, until digital cameras are 48 MPixel and cost less than film cameras and have a working life of 10+ years... I'll stick to film capture and then scan the negs. Easy, cheap, high quality results and no need to ride the marketing-driven-upgrade-merry-go-round. ;>)

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), April 27, 2002.

Why does the original medium matter?

Yes it does matter, digital encourages this type of manipulation,it is deemed a part of the photographic process.It encourages the photographer to create images which are far from reality.The end result being that the photograph looses truth...that has always been the power of photography(whether totally true or not).

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 27, 2002.

Allen, I do understand--in the abstract--your point and agree that the door for manipulation is open wider with digital than with film. Imagine that the only evidence of a massacre is a digital photograph; there is no negative to corroborate. Who knows whether the image has been manipulated?

This I get. How, though, does a digital camera actually ENCOURAGE manipulation? I can still fire up my trusty scanner and open Photoshop and place two blue moons squarely over the Empire State Building, which I had shot on Velvia . . .

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 27, 2002.

Allen - why ask the questions when you've already decided on the answers? I'm no lover of digital myself (particularily when the digital gurus forcast the death of film next week) but your thinking is far from the truth. Firstly the artist (this seems to be who you're speaking of) does in fact find the final image to be the most important thing. If he can easily get that image via film (whether in a Leica or not is immaterial) he will. If he finds he works easier and can achieve his aims digitally, that's what he'll use. I sell a lot of my image in art galleries and used to make my living from commercial photography. Not one single buyer has ever asked me what kind of camera I use. Only other photographers do this and they don't buy my images - they make their own. For a lot of amatuers digital is cheaper, especially if they take a lot of photos. A good p/s digital is now only about 2 to 3 times as good as a good p/s 35mm. If they take just 15 rolls of film a year they will make up the difference in the camera in a couple of years. If all they want is 4X6 prints, done at Walmart, no one will be able to tell what camera they came from. Then Allen there is the whole pro thing. Many ad agencies and printers don't even want to see a hard copy these days. Send a file to the agency or the printer and that's all they need. At 300 dpi, for a magazine photo, not you or anyone else is going to be able to say "Hey, that's not Leica quality". You are right, for absolute quality the most efficient way to get a result is with film. But not everyone needs absolute quality. You are making the huge error in thinking that the majority of image users think as Leica owners do. Reality Allen is most of them don't know a Leica from a hole in the ground. Times change my friend - don't you think the corner 18th century portrait painter said all the same things about photography when it started to become popular.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 27, 2002.

why ask the questions when you've already decided on the answers

I have a open mind(yes true,difficult to believe).Since digital has arrived i see more and more photos in magazines etc which are just fantasy.I wonder our far it will go and photography as truth(yes people believe)will loose its credibility.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 27, 2002.

There are many commercial uses for photgraphs which do not exploit the quality of film or Leicas. Newspapers, advertising catalogs, most magazines, the small pictures in textbooks, not to mention web use at screen resolution, are examples of subjects that are reproduced at resolution below even today's best digital cameras even if they were shot originally on film. A commercial photographer who normally shoots and processes a hundred rolls of film a week (let's say that comes to $1200/week or $14,400/year) will save $10,000 by buying a $4400 digital body and tosssing it in the dumpster in a year's time. Commercial photography is just that: commercial. No talking about art or truth or esoteric subjects needed.

For the amateur hobbyist, Allen might have a point. But it's not one that forum talk will affect. The public has overwhelmingly been swept up by the slick marketing of digital photo equipment. The horse has left the gate.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 27, 2002.

why use a computer and not a pen? why travel by car or rain or plain if you could ride a horse? why watch TV when you could go to a theater? look forward!

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), April 27, 2002.

18th century portrait painter said all the same things about photography when it started to become popular

Most modern day artists still use those 18th century methods.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 27, 2002.

slick marketing of digital photo equipment

Sad but true how easly we are led.Many years ago i worked for Mars, a marketing person told me Mars could put s... in these wrappers the public would still buy them.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 27, 2002.

"18th century portrait painter said all the same things about photography when it started to become popular"

Gee--I didn't know there was photography in the 18th century! In the 19th century it tended to force painters out of pure realism and into more creative manipulation of light, shadow, and color. For example, the impressionists, followed by various schools of non-objective approaches.

-- Jack Matlock (jfmatlo@attglobal.net), April 27, 2002.

Jack Matlock

Still brush and canvas....okay! no photos.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 27, 2002.

Didn't Ansel Adams use a lot of dodging and burning whilst printing? The way the mind perceives a scene and the more realistic way a camera sees a scene are 2 different things, bringing the 2 closer to how the photographer wishes to convey a scene is the key here I think. Purporting that one is purer or more correct than the other one is more opinion, since it's different for each artist. I am sure painters embellish their scenes as well. It's the creative touch. True, it can be overdone, but done classily it distinguishes the shutter clicker from the artist I think.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

>>>>Image editing objectives Image editing is close to the core of the creative act of photographic printmaking; it is where you transform a well-crafted snapshot into a work of art. It is where you implement Ansel Adams' oft-repeated statement, "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance." Adams realized that a print can never capture the tonal range of an actual scene, particularly a naturally illuminated landscape. A print has a maximum tonal range of only about 50:1. Scenes have widely varying tonal ranges, often much greater. If you try to transfer a scene literally to a print, the contrast may be too low, resulting in a flat appearance. More often it's too high, resulting in washed out highlights and dead shadows. Even if you correct the contrast (and do nothing else), you will rarely capture the living visual experience of the scene. Why? Because our eyes function differently when viewing prints and viewing scenes. As our eyes move about a scene, they constantly adapt to differences in illumination using all sorts of cues not present in a print. The image we experience is the result of numerous small and large adaptations. When we look at a print, our eyes don't adapt at all. They grasp the print as a whole. In order to capture the feeling of a scene, we have to put those adaptations into the print. To really bring out the artistic essence of the scene, we often have to go a great deal further.

In practice, that means if you photograph in natural light, you must dodge (lighten selected areas of a print) and burn (darken selected areas). When I started with photography I thought the master straight photographers (Steiglitz, Strand, Weston, Bullock, Adams, etc.) practiced "pure" photography and didn't do much dodging and burning. I was wrong. They were consummate artists who understood the workings of the human eye. They worked very hard on their prints, balancing every element to maximize the visual intensity. As Paul Caponigro said in a 1973 workshop,

"If I were God, I would say 'Let there be light.' Then I'd never have to dodge or burn."<<<<

From the website: http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints3.html

What's your idea of unmanipulated photography Allen? Just curious. Whether you manipulate a bit in the darkroom or Photoshop the objective is the same for some.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

Most modern day artists still use those 18th century methods.

This is not the least bit true. Airbrush, acrylics, the computer, these are very much the tools of modern artists. Ignorance may be comfortable, but it hardly makes one right.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), April 27, 2002.

go see a demonstration of Phase-One.prints 9feet high. then say this.sure there are cheap systems and this... for me,digital too expensive.i like a real print. but do not say poorer quality.Like everything in this world,including Leicas,price is a different matter.

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

I am grateful we now have a choice between digital and film. As mentioned above, digital does shorten the workflow and reduce the cost for many applications where the differences between the two media are negligible, and I have enjoyed the savings and efficiencies of going digital in the little occupational shooting that I do. That being said, I also would regret the loss of the great variety of artistic qualities film offers were it to become unavailable. Leica cameras particularly provide that elemental experience of photography that electronic digital (and even electronic film cameras) miss. As for resale values, that is just gravy as far as I am concerned; although it is reassuring to know that others value Leica enough to support a good second-hand market. Choice of media only offers the opportunity for creativity, not a guarantee of it; you can be just as creative in preproduction digital as you can with film, or for that matter, just as much a documentarian.

-- Chris Henry (henryjc@concentric.net), April 27, 2002.

Okay, a couple of things. Number one, at the newspaper where I work all the photographers use digital. It is faster (no film processing)and cheaper, (no film processing). Almost all of the photos of international news you see in your paper come from the wire and are digital now.

As for altering photographs, it has been done for years and years. Many of us are familiar with the photograph of the Yalta conference-- Joe Stalin, Winston Churchill and FDR. That photo has been either cropped or airbrushed to suggest that someone else wasn't there-- Chiang Kai Chek, the Chinese Nationalist Generalissimo. Selective editing or fantasy? Or what about TIME magazine purposely altering the color (Darkening sometimes makes people look more sinister) of O.J. Simpson's face on the cover (Uh or was it NEWSWEEK?) during his murder trial. I bet that photo was from a neg.

Now I am no conspiracy theorist or garden variety crank, (As in I think OJ did it), I'm just trying to point out that Allen's worries were happening long before digi.

Also, on a side note, the French poet and art critic Baudelaire bemoaned the fate of painting after he saw some of the early daguerrotypes. He thought photography spelled certain death for painting. I suggest you go talk to Julian Schnabel or Mark Kostabi and see what they think.

-- Hyatt Lee (shahmat@ms63.hinet.net), April 27, 2002.

Ahhh interesting chap that Baudelaire, read some of his work during a college course. Especially enjoyed the work "To The Reader", suggest others check it out ; )

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/039250.html

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

Utter nonense.Why do you come out with semi- flame statements,it makes you sound some sort of demi-god of photography

Pointing out the absurdity of someone's statements is not a flame. What I said makes me sound like someone with actual experience taking photos and/or some small knowledge of the history of photography. Picking up a camera encourages me to manipulate reality. Any skilled photographer can completely misrepresent a scene or show it in ways that express his personal vision without needing to perform any kind of digital manipulation. The idea that a photo taken with a film camera necessarily represents any kind of "objective truth" is horribly naive.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 27, 2002.

Digital is only a technological process, the functional equivalent of using film and scanning it.

Below I've listed what digital promises to deliver in the future, and is already some of the way there on some counts or has delivered.

All the progress we see suggests steady movement to these ideals.

And the experience with other digital technologies over the last 50 years is that all expectations of future capability have been surpassed wildly. So for once, our high hopes maybe on track...

Speaking now with a Leicaphile frame of mind...

1. Image resolution greater than 35mm film (or 120 or...)

2. Silent operation. A totally silent shutter.

3. Shutter speeds in excess of 1/8000 sec. removing all issues of subject and camera movement.

4. Dynamic range and color purity greater than film.

5. Sensor sizes smaller than film for equivalent quality.

Correspondingly, smaller, lighter lenses, with greater low light capability. Those familiar with 8mm movies know that F1.0 zoom lenses with high resolution were made decades ago. Such lenses offset the selective focus (DOF) reduction resulting from the smaller sensors, while delivering side benefits such as greater low light capability, or by the same token, better motion freezing through higher shutter speeds.

6. True ISO speeds greater than the 1200 ISO theoretical limit (based on film base+fog definition of emulsion sensititivy) for silver halide technologies.

7. Instant review, editing, and printing.

8. Instant transmission, possibly wirelessly.

9. Camera bodies smaller and lighter than an M body. Based on the above, how about a pocketable Contax T3 camera with a 5x F1.0 zoom that is totally silent, that eliminates camera shake and subject movement through high ISO and high shutter speeds, with no loss in quality, and where you can get prints by your desk.

You think we're far from that goal? Sure, but look how far we've come in 5 years-surely the list above is not pie in the sky based on that. Worth supporting as a goal, isn't it?

And remember, a lot of photojournalists and other professionals, as pointed above, already have enough progress on these goals to make digital a compelling choice.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 27, 2002.

I'm about to buy a Leica M6ttl, but if I had enough money I would get the M6 and the Nikon D100, so there. One could have the best of both worlds as I am sure many on this forum already do. So will Leica ever come out with a digital M camera?

Cheers

-- Hyatt Lee (shahmat@ms63.hinet.net), April 27, 2002.

Mike is so spot on. When was the last time you looked out the front door without your camera and saw great bokeh? And I'm not talking about polishing off a bottle of Chateau D'yquem or downing a six pack of Rolling Rock with your mates either.

-- Hyatt Lee (shahmat@ms63.hinet.net), April 27, 2002.

Hyatt, try this out: focus with your eyes on something near you, now use your mind to see the areas around the focal point. What do you see? Non-focused image- the most beautiful bokeh ever to grace an image *grin*. It is true that the human eye is a lens, along with all the features of a lens and then some. Aperture, focal length, etc.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.

Why bringing this up time and time again? If you like digital and it suits your needs, use it, if you don't, don't. I use digital scans for previews. If I realy like the pic I bring it to the darkroom.

For myself I see that for B&W and low light digital has a long way to go, although Epson(?) made a real step forward with greyscale printing. Also saving time compared to darkroom is an illusion. Quality of color is (very) good if you stick to smaller than A3 size. In my photogroup I useally spot a digital B&W print a mile away.

One member made the final remark on choosing digital. I prefer to sit in the room with my family when printing my pic's, over a evening alone in the darkroom. Excellent choise to go digital.

BTW you digital camera will make the same quality pictures in 4-5 years. If you like them now, there is a good chance you will like them in 5 years. So there is no need in replacing it every year or so. Do you buy a new computer every 6 months?

The only ones worried should be collectors. There's little chance the digital camera will still work after 50 years or so. So lets stick to our Leica's

Reinier

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), April 28, 2002.

Just to throw in another 0.02. I bought a Canon Ixus V a couple of weeks ago. It's the best investment into a photographic tool I have made for a long time. I spent 400 Euro (350 USD) and have saved the equivalent in raw stock, development and prints ever since. It is so compact and lightweight that it has become the first camera ever that I carry around with me (attached to the belt) *always*. The possibility of reviewing your shots immediately is such a tremendous advantage for what I use the camera for. I'm preparing a movie and I'm just collecting views, moods, headshots, perspectives and am able to store and present them to everybody involved in the production in seconds. I can attach it to any tv set and make a presentation out of a box the size of a pack of cigarettes. I convinced the DOP to snatch another one of these and he is so grateful for the hint. You can see us running around sets, shooting away and showing each other what we have found. It's an amazing tool for immediate (as well as internet based) communication of visuals. As for the downsides, the image quality is modest, compared to Leica standards. The zoom is limited. The "film speed" too, etc... but for the specific purpose and for the fun factor it offers I can easily live with those shortcomings. Horses for races.

Just to re-insure you of my Leica loyalty, I am more than happy to have my M6 along, too, for real photographs. I.e. visuals with a life expectance...;o)



DOP Sten Mende (right) presenting the EasyRig cameramount to executive producer Georg Bonhoeffer.

Cheers

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), April 28, 2002.

What's your idea of unmanipulated photography Allen? Just curious. Whether you manipulate a bit in the darkroom or Photoshop the objective is the same for some.

Darkroom tech improves the photograph,photoshop encourages to change it...big difference.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.

Pointing out the absurdity of someone's statements is not a flame.

Okay!point taken,manipulation is about degrees,improvement of the image is one thing,changing it is another.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.

Lutz, what is that thing?

It looks a lot like a concept I once described humorously on photo.net, a rig to carry a flash plus a huge diffuser over the shoulder like a parrot, leaving the hands free to handle a small light camera :-)

My idea was to make life easier for wedding photographers, while improving the quality of their off camera flash lighting...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 28, 2002.

Some might find this link interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/index.htm

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.

Mani,

At the risk of slightly sliding OT I will gladly answer your question. The Easyrig is half way between handheld (i.e. shoulder rest) camera operation and Steadycam. It allows for a movie camera to be attached to a string, right in front of the operator. A spring mechanism is adjusted according to the weight of the camara setup. The Arriflex setup with video display shown weights around twelve kilos. The camera movement will be much more floating - especially when walking along with (or around) actors - than in shoulder held operation, which more directly transmits the body movement of the operator. Furthermore, the camera can be held at lower than shoulder levels. While still not allowing for equally smooth camera movements the Easyrig can be rented at a much lower daily fee than a Steadycam with specialized operator.

Wouldn't know, though, if for still photography, especially on weddings, it was worth sacrificing the dress code...? ;o)

Three days from shooting - wish me luck.



DOP Sten Mende with camera assistants Andrea Theis and Can Elbasi mounting Arriflex 16SR3 on an Easyrig.

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), April 28, 2002.

Photography has never been about the truth, as photographers have been manipulating their images since the beginning of the medium, and I mean more than just routine dodging and burning. Edward Curtis routinely retouched signs of civilization out of his images of American Indians; Eugene Smith added silhouettes of tools to his picture of Albert Schweitzer; Richard Avedon would take the head out of one negative and add it to the body from another. All of these examples were performed without the aid of Photoshop. And don't think photojournalism is above all of this. Look at this essay by Paul Martin Lester. The point is, saying digital encouages image manipulation is like saying legalizing marijuana encourages widespread use.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), April 28, 2002.

The point is, saying digital encouages image manipulation is like saying legalizing marijuana encourages widespread use

Before digital it was rare you that you ever saw fantasy photo images in serious mags now it is becoming exceptable...think about it.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.

Steve from your link

Before computers were popular, the famous photojournalist, W. Eugene Smith said, "Let truth be the prejudice."/21 Truth is the guiding principle - not layout efficiency, not magazine cover eye-catching ability, not political persuasion, but truth. When truth is the prejudice, photographs, and the stories behind them, can be easily defended and are a source for humanistic concern and inspirations

I can add little or want to.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.

An example of "truth" (no digital manipulation other than cropping):

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 28, 2002.

Nice photo,pretty girl.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.

"Before digital it was rare you that you ever saw fantasy photo images"

Jerry Uehlsmann might disagree.

-- Mike Barber (hax@htc.net), April 28, 2002.

Manipulation has always been part and parcel to photography, even in photojournalism.

Anyone who has read more about W. Eugene Smith knows that he manipulated his prints as much as any photoshop jock.

-- Pete Su (psu@kvdpsu.org), April 28, 2002.

Manipulation has always been part and parcel to photography, even in photojournalism

But now we are really going for it.Once upon a time it was frowned upon ,now it is becoming the norm.The power of photography has always been depicting reality(whether true or false).

I am starting to feel like King Canute,time to shut up on this subject.Thanks for the contributions.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 28, 2002.

Yah she's way hot Mike. I need to get into model photography, looks like fun *grin*

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.

Why pay at least 4 times as much for a digital.

Consider this is being said in a Leica forum, where a camera body is a $2000 expense and a lens is a $1000 expense, and a 5Mpixel digital camera which can produce a 4x6 to 8x12 of identical quality (not counting lens imaging characteristics of course) for $1000.

Why have a poorer quality image.

See above.

Why buy a camera which in a few months is out of date and has little resale value.

As long as the camera, of whatever type, can take images of satisfactory quality for the photographer, whether it is "out of date" or not is irrelevant, and whether it has resale value is only of interest to someone who buys equipment for collectibility or resale purposes. I buy cameras to take photographs with.
< br> Why take away the creative ability of photography and replace it with Computer Science.

Are you saying that people who exercise the software and computers that you're communicating with are not creative? that there is no creativity involved in digital image processing? that the visual/perceptive art of taking a photograph changes somehow because the technology of the camera has changed? that the development and creation of a print by chemistry is somehow more creative than the extraction of meaningful images through some other mechanism?

By any means of interpretation, this question is meaningless. < br>
Are we loosing our way, the creation of a image being the ultimate goal,by any means. The world likes truth, is digital replacing it with fantasy. In the future will we look at a photograph and wonder if it really the truth;ALL IMPACT LOST.

Again, there is no meaning whatever in this set of statements. The notion that a photograph represents "Truth" is only valid insofar as the credentials of its creation ... Photography is manipulative and 100% perception and illusion unless it is carefully credentialed through documentation and process for recording facts/data. Digital photography is neither more nor less illusory.



-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), April 28, 2002.