Now, let's address digital. I'll post something I sent privately to a
couple of list members which explains my feelings of this subject.
WRT to digital, I'm not quite the Luddite that I may
appear, although do prefer good B&W photography over
anything else. However, a good quality digital camera
at a reasonable price would be a wonderful thing to have.
So many friends and relatives can be reached by email,
and it's nice to be able to send them photos every now
and then. My current digital camera, while OK, doesn't
really come up to the standards I'd like, and although
I'm not really interested in making ink jet prints, it
would be nice to leave that door open for doing so in
the future.
I've seen some wonderful color work at several exhibitions
over the past few months. Prints that were at least 2 feet
long on one side. The quality of those prints were very,
very good, but it's clear they were not made on a typical
consumer ink jet machine. These were Iris prints, or prints
made with a similar type of machine. That's where digital
becomes really interesting to me. And snapshots and stuff
for email is very useful as well. It's just the photography
that's in between - the exhibition B&W stuff, the Magnum
type of photos, street photography, and capturing
slice-of-life moments that, for me, digital seems to offer
little value. That's Leica territory, LX territory, MX
territory - where the shutter can be actuated almost as
fast as you can think about it, where the image one sees
through the viewfinder is of paramount importance, and
where the cameras are simple but robust, with few
distractions and features to divert one's attention from
what's happening at the moment.
And, of course, I like that "heavy metal" feel of the bodies
and lenses. There's something quite reassuring in hearing the
snick of the shutter or the subtle whap of the return mirror.
And I love the feel of advancing the film, and the challenge
of honing my skills and reflexes, and not being dependent on
anything but my own intelligence, creativity, and abilities.
In addition, I'd like to note that there is a substantial difference
between cameras and viewfinders. We all have our preferences, and I
prefer my view of the world to be unencumbered by information
readouts, flashing lights, and signals of any sort. The less there is
in the finder the happier I am. I see no need for shutter speed and
aperture information, or what mode I'm operating in (heck, my cameras
have no "modes"), although a very sophisticated computer is activated
when I put a camera to my eye - my brain. It allows me to know what
the shutter speed and aperture is - after all, I set 'em.
Finally, a few words about Leicas specifically, and manual cameras in
general. These are not my words, but they express my sentiments:
"Personally, I think the Leica is a mechanical photography
teacher. I think every photographer--whatever kind of
photographer they are--should use a Leica for a year at
some point in their lives. And I'm talking really *use* it,
too--put the rest of your gear in the closet and shoot 200
rolls with the Leica. I can almost guarantee you'll come
out of that year a better photographer than you went in."
I like my cameras to be like sports cars - good handling, affording
complete control without any extraneous frills, quick to respond, and,
perhaps, a little quirky.
Cheers!
--
Shel Belinkoff (donning his Nomex photo vest and kevlar helmet)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
