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.
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.That IS interesting. Got a link?
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.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.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.)
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.
and te
and the cost of film?
and the cost of chemistry?
Yeah it was on that scrolling banner. It was pithy, but at least acknowledged that something happened.Oops...I see it now
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.
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.
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.
And is the purpose of this boycott to get them to post a pro-film article on ALC?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.
This email arrived today:
View attachment 198356
And is the purpose of this boycott to get them to post a pro-film article on ALC?
So the purpose of the boycott then is to punish Adorama for promoting digital over film? I get it.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.
depends on the film and developer,Less than $2000.
So the purpose of the boycott then is to punish Adorama for promoting digital over film? I get it.
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?For posting inaccurate information about film photography. I figured that if you thought about it long enough you would figure it out.
Not until one side crushes the other forever under their mighty heel! LOL.
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?
For posting inaccurate information about film photography. I figured that if you thought about it long enough you would figure it out.
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.Clearly you missed the anti film sentiment of that article. Others were not so unobservant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?