Can you believe Adorama would post this?

[Ces1um]

That IS interesting. Got a link?

I couldn't find where he stole the article. I do see that japan camera hunter covered in his blog what adorama has done though. I'd like to see a link too where it shows he's plagiarized japan camera hunter.

 

[warden]

For those interested, there is now an apology on the Adorama Learning Center front page about Resnick using Ken Rockwell's photo. (Written by Adorama apparently, rather than Resnick.)

 

[David Luttmann]

For those interested, there is now an apology on the Adorama Learning Center front page about Resnick using Ken Rockwell's photo. (Written by Adorama apparently, rather than Resnick.)

Do you have a link....I dont see any apology there. Regardless, Resnick should be apologising...but he has now been hiding for two days.

 

[Ces1um]

For those interested, there is now an apology on the Adorama Learning Center front page about Resnick using Ken Rockwell's photo. (Written by Adorama apparently, rather than Resnick.)

Thanks for pointing this out! Glad to see Adorama take some action on this.

 

[David Luttmann]

Oops...I see it now

 

[cramej]

As someone who spent $125 for my used Canon DSLR with kit lens, I disagree with many of the posts in this thread .

Is there really someone who's into film who put a price on p

+1
I paid $200 for my used Pentax dSLR, half this number covered by the sale on my previous camera. Digital can be cheap, film can be expensive and vice versa.

I don't think anyone here is saying that digital can't be cheaper than film - only that someone like Resnick, who is buying $3500 cameras (and $$$ lenses to go with it), can't easily justify that digital is cheaper. MattKing and Helios 1984 are already ahead of me since I just spent $150 on processing and scanning for film shot on 3 different cameras that cost me a total of about $500.

I like film and will continue to shoot it. I don't waste my time trying to justify its use (for myself) by cost comparisons because it would only cause me to shoot less.

 

[RattyMouse]

and te

and the cost of film?
and the cost of chemistry?

Less than $2000.

 

[warden]

Oops...I see it now

Yeah it was on that scrolling banner. It was pithy, but at least acknowledged that something happened.

 

[Saganich]

why wouldn't they post that ?
they are in the business of selling digital cameras to most people
probably 5000:1 ( that is 5000 digital cameras per 1 film camera USED )
.. besides it is no secret that any commercial photographer
( like the guy in the video ) who uses film for ad-work probably needs some
couch time telling dr froid about his mom.

Yea I see it as evidence that digital sales are slacking. The insane product cycle is not as profitable last quarter.

 

[John51]

Give up film cameras. Give up digital cameras. All you need is the ability to remove watermarks and you can steal photos. Can't get cheaper than that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is really simple: Adorama does not need my business.
Therefore I contacted them and sent them this:

I read
Dead Link Removed
Well, I will no longer buy anything from your store. Since you are anti-film, you can just go out of business as far as I am concerned.​

This email arrived today:

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Upgrade their photography?

 

[Ces1um]

Upgrade their photography. If they said upgrade their equipment, I could let that pass. Upgrade their photography? That's as insulting as their original post.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I expect they'll post a pro-film article soon. Someone will realize they're offending a small, but passionate, group of customers. I'm 100% film/darkroom, but I don't buy into the "boycott" talk which occurs whenever we're aggrieved. It reminds me of the kid who takes his basketball home because he wasn't picked to play in the first game.

Boycotts do work. Take a look at the bus boycott in Montgomery Alabama. One hurt Rush Lambbrain. Some have left Faux News because of boycotts of advertisers. They do work sometimes.

 

[faberryman]

Boycotts do work. Take a look at the bus boycott in Montgomery Alabama. One hurt Rush Lambbrain. Some have left Faux News because of boycotts of advertisers. They do work sometimes.

And is the purpose of this boycott to get them to post a pro-film article on ALC?

 

[warden]

This email arrived today:
View attachment 198356

Holy mackerel. They really don't want your business.

 

[Sirius Glass]

And is the purpose of this boycott to get them to post a pro-film article on ALC?

No, I just will buy cameras, film and supplies from other dealers. Just as I stated earlier. You can see my the previous post that they realize that the article is causing them to lose business, so others and I got their attention.

 

[faberryman]

No, I just will buy cameras, film and supplies from other dealers. Just as I stated earlier. You can see my the previous post that they realize that the article is causing them to lose business, so others and I got their attention.

So the purpose of the boycott then is to punish Adorama for promoting digital over film? I get it.

 

[removed account4]

Less than $2000.

depends on the film and developer,
im sure if he is using the new schodachhrome™ film .. its $200 / roll processing included,
the mailer is to someone in antarctica and he processes the film using yak urin, hair dye and stale dog biscuits.
they don't give you slides back only low res scans of your slides .. that's 10rolls ...
im sure if he was using other film too it easily gets him to his limit ..

 

[Sirius Glass]

So the purpose of the boycott then is to punish Adorama for promoting digital over film? I get it.

For posting inaccurate information about film photography. I figured that if you thought about it long enough you would figure it out.

 

[faberryman]

For posting inaccurate information about film photography. I figured that if you thought about it long enough you would figure it out.

It just seemed to me like the ordinary run of the mill article touting digital over film that you read everywhere. It was just another eyeroller to me. Why so sensitive? If they posted a pro-film article would you expect digital photographers to advocate boycotting them?

 

[jtk]

Not until one side crushes the other forever under their mighty heel! LOL.

I don't think there are many arguments from any "digital side." Adorama has never been my supplier-of-choice and I don't know why anybody else would shop there. I prefer B&H and Freestyle. Or Amazon (sorry Herr Trump).

I'm mostly a capitalist... Adorama is a business, not a People's Service.

Look at all Media images on Photrio from the outdated film contingent: Image quality is clearly less important than price....

I just bought some Ilford 3200 and some HP5. WILDLY expensive (Freestyle), I expected that and knew why I was shooting it.

Me, I wouldn't waste an image opportunity on outdated film...

 

[RPC]

Adorama, being a photographic supplier, in the best interest of the photographic community, should not be pushing one over the other. If anything, they should promote the merits of both, and let the user decide.

 

[RattyMouse]

It just seemed to me like the ordinary run of the mill article touting digital over film that you read everywhere. It was just another eyeroller to me. Why so sensitive? If they posted a pro-film article would you expect digital photographers to advocate boycotting them?

Clearly you missed the anti film sentiment of that article. Others were not so unobservant.

 

[faberryman]

For posting inaccurate information about film photography. I figured that if you thought about it long enough you would figure it out.

Clearly you missed the anti film sentiment of that article. Others were not so unobservant.

I noticed it. I've read it before and I expect to read it again. It's background noise. As I asked before, if they ran a pro-film article, do you think the pro-digital folks would all be up in arms and call for a boycott? It just seems ridiculous to me. And I shoot film.