I remember, years ago on the Galbraith forum, James touted the Leaf backs as being "more film like" even though he derided photographers using film by saying that "film was a romantic notion."
I'm curious as to why you switched to Phase and what about the Phase you appreciate more than the Leaf backs.
Actually, I said film was a romantic notion of the past. To some extent I believe that.
Cameras, that's another thing as with some cameras there are things you can shoot or shoot in a way that you can't with digital, i.e. the Fuji 680, an 8x10 camera, a 6x7 RZ or Pentax 6x7. Those cameras had a certain look that can be emulated by digital but not exactly repeated.
It's interesting, last week I spoke to an Art Director for about an hour about a project.
One question he had, or more a statement he made was most photographers he knows shoots film for themselves or for editorial but shoot only digital for commerce.
He asked if I shot digital and I said I actually embrace digital capture. I think that answer kind of threw him as he was use to the NY mindset where many photographers or a certain level only shoot digital with an outside tech and turn it over for someone else to process, color, retouch and purpose.
I said I think digital is a much more intimate learning experience than film. In the film days I could or wouldn't shoot a film and process it in 6 different labs, with 6 different processing routines.
I would never have looked at hundreds even thousands of frames of film at 100% and learned the nuances. With digital I have done that.
I think there are very few film looks I can't achieve with digital and better yet, dozens of looks I can achieve that I never would have had the opportunity to try with film.
Also digital offers opportunities film never did, especially in commerce or high pressure situations.
With digital I can get the base idea into the can and then go on and expore newer or maybe even images with more risk, because I know the base image is covered.
With digital I have a "polaroid" that is way more detailed and accurate than any film proof and I have it in about 2 seconds.
I can adapt, correct and see the results now, rather than even wait 60 seconds and kind of translate the polaroid look into what film will do.
Yes, there were/are some interesting films and like digital cameras and backs some were more suited for some styles than others, but not all films were really beautiful and not all films worked for some situations.
To me film is a romantic notion of the past and though digital has a way steep learning curve and takes a huge monitary and time investment, it's well worth it.
As far as switching from Leaf to Phase. We'll at first I didn't really switch, I just added a Phase back to my contax's. The main reason was at the time the Leaf software was "challanged" and the Phase was faster and more stable. I stay quite busy and I needed stability and speed.
I understand LC11 is a much improved tethering software now.
Also I needed even slightly higher iso. The Leaf was great at 200 but only up to 200 (the A-22) where the P-30 would go to 400, but not much more than 400.
Had the A-22 gone to 400 iso clean I would have kept it and probably still bought a P-30 but waited for lc11 to become mature.
Both backs are different and offer different looks. At times I found the Leaf very "film like" whatever that means at times I find the Phase quite nice.
They are very different backs.
Now, back to this art director's comments. I asked him to go onto my web site and pick out the two images he thought best represented film. The two he slected were shot with the A-22.
Whether that means anything or not I'm not sure.