Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Why shoot film

Subject: Re: [OM] Why shoot film
From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:24:59 -0600
Nathan, I understand what you are saying, but the premise of my thesis is
the presence of other measurables and immeasurables other than "image
quality". To draw a very sick parallel, this is like automobiles and using
"number of seats" and "cupholders" as the yardstick to determine which
vehicle is "best".  By that measure, a minivan will beat a sedan every
time.  By that measure, a Dodge Cirrus is a better car than a BMW 3-series.

When comparing specifications, we are drawn towards purchasing a product
with distinct advantages of other products in just those areas.  Any
manufacturer can "game the system" knowing what the comparison tests will
be.  DPREVIEW's comparison tests are very easy to figure out and it is
obvious that Canon, for example, has been able to play into their testing
criteria perfectly.  Just look at how good the 5D is, for example.  Yet, we
have three vocal 5D users here on the list which will espouse just how
horrid the ergonomics can be.  Unfortunately, ergonomics are not a
measurable, otherwise the Olympus E-1 and Konica-Minolta D7D would have been
the top performers of all. If ergonomics were measurable, Canon would barely
be worth a mention.  Digital Rebel, anyone?  DPREVIEW is finally starting to
give Canon grief over some IDIOTIC things, but obviously not enough.  Until
Phil says "Great Sensor, Horrid Camera, I cannot even recommend this camera"
will we not see ANY change from Canon or other companies that have forgotten
about the intangibles.  Instead of any wholesale improvement in the handling
of the camera, they add HD Video.

But this is not a digital-bashing nor Canon-bashing. I have no axe to grind
with either.  I also love shooting digital!  There are certain situations
where you won't catch me shooting film, at all.  It's no longer an
appropriate technology.  Ultra-clean, ultra-sharp is a "look".  A long
straight-line section with no toe or shoulder is a "look".  Lots of
shadow-detail is a "look".  These are characteristics identified with
digital images.  Grungy, organic and grainy are known "looks" of film.  Or
at least they can be.  What I am suggesting is picking the technology which
natively gives a "look" to the final print that achieves the desired results
as efficiently and in the best way possible.


>But all that does not matter. Since neither you nor I photograph for
>money, the only thing that matters is what feel like doing.

Well, in my case I actually do photograph for money.  Not enough, but that's
another story.  I do shoot for pleasure too, but frankly, as a hobby, who
needs to really spend any more than $50 USD on a pocket digital camera?

Which comes back around to the most important point in my five-point
theses.  #5.

AG
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz