Great post Shel, I agree. For myself, there are two kinds of photography:
documentation of an event for the photoalbum (be it webbased or in paper
format), and the more pretentious, artistically inspired kind of
photography. I could imagine to buy a digital camera for the first purpose,
only for the convenience. Pentax or not Pentax, well, if there is anything
to gain by using Pentax I will. A digital K-mount SLR for instance. The MZ-D
(or whatever it is called) is out of the question though, it's much too
expensive. Come to think of it, so are most digital cameras worth using
anyway.
For the other kind of photography, digital is no option. I would rather get
a large format camera. Productivity and economy are not parameters, quality
is. So are the emotional aspects of the craft that Shel so eloquently
describe below.
/Erik
-----Original Message-----
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: den 17 september 2001 13:57
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: THE NEW PENTAX
Hi ...
At this point there's no reason for me to be using a digital camera -
in fact, I pretty much hate the beasts. Many look like futuristic
creatures from a '50s B-movie sci-fi film, others are very large and
cumbersome, and many have lots of buttons and features, and all sorts
of (literally) bells and whistles. I like my cameras to be simple,
pleasing to my senses with a classic look and feel. I've yet to see a
digital camera that looks and feels like an LX, Spotmatic, or a Leica.
That said, if such a camera could be produced, I'd like it to have
interchangeable prime lenses as well as manual focusing and some way
to view DOF.
Then there's the issue of B&W. I've not yet seen a digital camera
that shoots true B&W images, although the ones I have seen allow the
user to desaturate color. It's not the same thing from what I've been
able to determine. In addition, there are now a wide variety of color
and B&W films, all with different characteristics. How does digital
deal with that? What id I want a grainy looking photograph, like TX
in Acufine, or something along the lines of Agfapan APX 25 in
Rodinal? How can digital provide those characteristics?
And then there's the final print. From what I've seen, unless one is
using something like an Iris printer, the stuff that comes of the
typical ink jet printer pales in comparison to a well-printed
photograph made in a chemical darkroom. While it may be good enough
for some people, thus far from what I've seen it just doesn't do it
for me. And the high quality prints from the big drum printers are
nice, but let's face it, they are different than a well printed photo
on fiber based paper.
Every day that I use the LX, or the Leica, I am thankful that there
are films such as Fuji's Acros, Bergger 200, Ilford's HP5+, and Tri-X,
(which is now a thin, pale shadow of its former self), and, although
I've not tried it yet, Fuji's Neopan 1600. I hope that other companies
will come out with new, non-T-grain emulsions that offer the richness
of these older style emulsions. While I am not averse to progress, it
saddens me to see some of the old, and very useful, emulsions
disappear or changed from what they once were. I was, for example,
surprised at the number of people on this list that felt that a 100
speed film was an acceptable alternative to the recently discontinued
APX 25. I miss Panatomic X as well (What a name for a film!). While
progress is often a good thing, affording different choices, it
sometimes comes at the expense of less popular items, and so often the
number of choices are diminished.
To me, digital means that there's a very good possibility that even
more emulsions will disappear, although, hopefully, others will spring
up and fill what will then be called a "niche market" and film may
become a boutique item. I hope that will not be the case.
To me, pixels have no character, and digital images all have a
sameness about them. Hell, digital isn't even called photography by
most people - it's imaging, and the results are images, not
photographs. It's a damned shame that even conventional photographs
are, more and more, being called images.
If all that was available was digital imaging I might well take up a
new hobby.
As for being loyal to Pentax, probably not. If I decided to go the
digital route I'd be looking for a camera that fit or matched as
closely as possible the requirements and preferences noted above,
unless, of course, I could use some of my favorite lenses on the
pixilated wonder. But I'd not be happy. I'd miss the film advance,
the snick of the shutter, the feel of metal and the sense of joy that
comes with using a finely made lens. I'd miss, too, the time I spend
with my cameras when I load the first roll of film of the day - where
I open the back, blow out the dust, check the shutter and the film
advance, and make sure the lens is clean and ready for another day on
the street. I'd miss the true glass pentaprism, or the quirky
rangefinder ...
Mike Johnston wrote:
> How willing are each of you to come along for the ride? I'm not asking if
> you'll "switch over" to digital--I have yet to see it written that if you
> use digital, you can't also use K2s, LXs, and MZ-Ss. But WHERE are you in
> your understanding of the new ways of making pictures, and HOW DO YOU FEEL
> about becoming forward-looking as well as backward-looking, and...will you
> still BE LOYAL to Pentax when most new product introductions are
digital???
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Why should I use a meter? What if the darn thing broke on me
when I was out making a photograph? Then what would I do?"
-
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 .
-
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 .
