On 3/8/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: >Pete Meyers makes the move from digital back to film. Some of what he >expresses mirrors what I feel, although I cannot attest to his technical >accuracy about a few points regarding digital, or even some of his comments >about film. However, many of the technical points he makes are of little >or no interest to me, certainly not in the overall context of the entire >article. Perhaps some here will find his comments mirror their own >feelings. I'm sure others will dismiss what he has to say with little >thought ... progress moves forward and Pete - and others, including myself >- are lagging behind. > >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/enough-already.shtml > >http://tinyurl.com/dxxto
Yeah, not bad article. But what gets me is the guy says it's all about the moment, not about the camera or the computer strapped to the back of it, but then spends ages spouting Leica propaganda. Fine, I have no problem with that. I think it's more to do with one's own personal affinity with photography, one's own approach and technique, one's own comfort level with the tools of the trade. Meyers obviously feels at one with his MP and 35mm lens, and that's great for him. I can understand that feeling - I get what I would consider a similar feeling with my 1D. Aside from the MX, I've never really felt it with any other gear. And mine does have a computer strapped to the back of it. Although I'll grant him one concession in that I prefer one prime lens (fully manual) over these electronic things. Is it progress to move to digital from film? I would say not. It's different. It's a way of achieving a result, as digital is. There's no reason in the world why the two cannot exist side by side, except possibly one. The film manufacturers will decide that. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
