Ken has lost the plot

Started Jan 23, 2009 | Discussions thread
larsbc Forum Pro • Posts: 15,234
Re: always some truth to what KR says

Fred Mueller wrote:

  • B&W film negatives last a lifetime: see below

With proper care and storage, they will last a long time (or even a lifetime). But then again, so will digital files. In fact, the digital files will last even longer and with zero degradation. But they require a little more involvement. I keep my files on 3 different hard-drives at home and also on an off-site over-the-web backup location.

35mm 1/60 f2.8 asa 400....background out window; a partially sunlit
parking digital camera I know of can do this. Why do
you think there are all the post about how lousey the meter is in the
D80 for instance,

Even with film cameras, having an accurate meter was something that people strived for. Under- or over-expose and you can end up with thin or blocked negs.

or total bafflment with matrix metering....its not
the meter "dudes"....its that digital sensors just have such limited
dynamics that any metering error is unforgiven. I bet there was at
least an 8 stop difference between shadows in my subjects sweater
below and the out the window background here....

Dpreview rates the D300 as having over 8 stops of tonal range which conceivably should be enough to do that shot. Since getting my D300, I haven't had any complaints about tonal range, certainly no more so than I did with ISO400 colour neg film.

You're right about there being some truth to what Ken says, but he uses that as a launching point for exaggerated opinions (eg: "serious" photographers are using film nowadays). His current rants are due to the fact that he has "found religion" in the form of the Leica system and coming up with ways to argue for the use of the M system. For instance, his making fun of DSLR shooters being psychologically trapped at that location while the lightweight M system let him feel free to explore other viewpoints. That's how he perceived those photographers but you need only go through photo magazines from 10 years ago and you'd see that the majority of landscape shooters were using SLR, MF and LF cameras. I would guess that very few used 35mm rangefinders. Even before digital, the Leica M system was a marginalized system. The fact that digital has dominated the photographic world doesn't suddenly make a 35mm rangefinder an ideal landscape camera.

Ken rails against M shooters who choose Cosina Voigtlander glass even though a renowned landscape shooter like Galen Rowell was known to use inexpensive Nikon SLR bodies and lenses when he wanted to travel light, and still produced beautiful, high quality images.

Oddly enough, Ken has also supported the go-cheap thinking in past articles so it comes across as rather schizophrenic to see hims suddenly arguing for the value proposition of Leica glass. He drank the Kool-aid and now he's a true believer.

Generally speaking, people who have little use for computers in their personal lives will probably get along better with film. But those of us who are already heavily into the digital world will prefer digital photography (again, generally speaking). And if you're a pro, well, my guess is that you need to have one foot in the digital realm, no matter how much you might prefer film.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow