Can you believe Adorama would post this?

[warden]

Other than wildly inaccurate cost comparisons, you are correct that what is stated in the article isn't incorrect. He is entitled to an opinion and to share it, but it's the condescending attitude and ye olde 'film vs digital' tripe that is irritating. His angle is convenience - and probably buyer's remorse after realizing what a mistake it was to sell the M3, then getting into the digital camera loop to the tune of $3500 every few years.

He then proceeds to top off the article with a big ol' middle finger to a portion of Adorama's customer base implying that film shooters will eventually see the light and convert: "So go ahead and indulge your film fantasies. You’ll learn the basis for good photography and this will ultimately make you a better digital photographer. And then, I predict, you’ll return to the convenience of digital. See you on the rebound!"

If you look at his profile, he is a writer first then a photographer. The article got him clicks and that's what he wanted.

I agree with your middle finger analogy - that quote is what got stuck in my craw more than the rest of it. That attitude is fine on forums but it's probably not a great idea to alienate customers and tell them they're wasting their money at your store. There are other places to conduct business.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Resnick... Some years ago I translated to Russian his article about him learning from GW (under given permission).
He is old now and as many old people he has to quit on film. Totally or partially. He is nothing special in this human body physiology.
Only really tough cookies stay with film under their age now. But even they don't make as many photographs as they were in fit condition.
So, nothing new here.
Getting old often means giving up on more difficult things. At this stage with same sucksess we could call going to pampers instead of going to toilet as update and easy process.

Digital vs Film bragging has one less common aspect. And it is connected to Resnick and GW. Would GW use digital if now? At first glance it sounds obvious, but part of GW income was selling prints. And even more so for Yousuf Karsh. And this is were question arise for me. Do I want inkjet print from someone? Absolutely not, even for free. I can't care less about books with digitals.
The only merit to me in photography is then I want to come and see it at the gallery and in museum. And then I see digital photography in these places it has zero value to me.
Ofcourse it doesn't mean what darkroom print is an art by default. But it is something I consider as valuable as paintings. Because it has traditional, physical, human part involved.
I went to George S. Zimbel exhibition knowing that he printed for it by himself under Leica enlarger. And it was just right for Montreal Museum of fine Arts.
While digital to ink prints, meh, it is always substitute even if it called as archival carbon, piezography. It is still mass produced, machine made reproduction. Cheap in value and feel.

As for film to be expensive argument, it has merit if photography judged by volumes. Yet, for gallery, museums it is next to irrelevant.
But if Resnick into some traditional weddings with hundreds of guests, then digital is the tool of the day.

 

[trendland]

The arguments on both sides are so tiresome. Will it never end?

The simple question I asked myself : "From where is this debate coming?"
I answered this question many years behind folowing : "It came from the beginning days of digital (more precisely from the period of the first 5years) "
Digital enthusiasts spent more than 2000 bucks to have 280.000 pixel cameras.
The following year manufacturers told them "Next generation" support 450.000 pixel with "full photo quality" (1875,- bucks) the year later 580.000 pixel then
O,85 Megapixel a.s.o .Till 2002 they all bought massive scratchy digital stuff :
(Below 2.0 Megapixel.) Their great revance came with 4Megapixel cameras.
Since this time digital photograpers went around and were allways whimpering :
"Photo quality, Photo quality,....That's
R E A L Photo quality now"
4Megapixel is indeed real quality ...... (for enlargements 5x7...size...)
with regards
PS : Today it has changed - today we are whimpering : "discontinuation,...discontinuation "
I would call this issue about the never ending debate :"Irony of fate"

 

[trendland]

Resnick... Some years ago I translated to Russian his article about him learning from GW (under given permission).
He is old now and as many old people he has to quit on film. Totally or partially. He is nothing special in this human body physiology.
Only really tough cookies stay with film under their age now. But even they don't make as many photographs as they were in fit condition.
So, nothing new here.
Getting old often means giving up on more difficult things. At this stage with same sucksess we could call going to pampers instead of going to toilet as update and easy process.

Digital vs Film bragging has one less common aspect. And it is connected to Resnick and GW. Would GW use digital if now? At first glance it sounds obvious, but part of GW income was selling prints. And even more so for Yousuf Karsh. And this is were question arise for me. Do I want inkjet print from someone? Absolutely not, even for free. I can't care less about books with digitals.
The only merit to me in photography is then I want to come and see it at the gallery and in museum. And then I see digital photography in these places it has zero value to me.
Ofcourse it doesn't mean what darkroom print is an art by default. But it is something I consider as valuable as paintings. Because it has traditional, physical, human part involved.
I went to George S. Zimbel exhibition knowing that he printed for it by himself under Leica enlarger. And it was just right for Montreal Museum of fine Arts.
While digital to ink prints, meh, it is always substitute even if it called as archival carbon, piezography. It is still mass produced, machine made reproduction. Cheap in value and feel.

As for film to be expensive argument, it has merit if photography judged by volumes. Yet, for gallery, museums it is next to irrelevant.
But if Resnick into some traditional weddings with hundreds of guests, then digital is the tool of the day.

Notice : If you want to become a real good photograper (one of these days) you should avoid such ceremonies in total. And you should learn the first 5 years to your carrier with film.
Later on everything seams to be possible.
In other direction it is impossible (from my point) with exeptions of course.
with regards
Ps : "Emily Soto" is one "exeption" indeed.

 

[keenmaster486]

None of the points made in the article are contentious, and none of them validly lead to any meaningful conclusions about film.

OF COURSE digital is cheaper, faster, more convenient, more flexible. Nobody ever said otherwise!!

That's not the point. Film photographers like film, a lot of the time, precisely because of those above points.

Often-cited is the fact that film forces you to slow down and think about what you're doing. This is considered a benefit.

The whole point of using film, in my opinion, is to get away from cold-hearted "convenience, speed, flexibility, cost-effectiveness, etc" and just focus on the moment. What you're doing, right there at that place, with that particular camera, and that particular film, that particular lens, and later in the darkroom, the same thing.

You can put a lot of love and care into a digital image, too. But that requires you to slow down and think about what you're doing as well, reducing to irrelevancy the points he made in the article which somehow make digital processes inherently "better."

 

[faberryman]

Often-cited is the fact that film forces you to slow down and think about what you're doing. This is considered a benefit.

The whole point of using film, in my opinion, is to get away from cold-hearted "convenience, speed, flexibility, cost-effectiveness, etc" and just focus on the moment. What you're doing, right there at that place, with that particular camera, and that particular film, that particular lens, and later in the darkroom, the same thing.

You can put a lot of love and care into a digital image, too. But that requires you to slow down and think about what you're doing as well, reducing to irrelevancy the points he made in the article which somehow make digital processes inherently "better."

Which is a real plus for those without the ability to self-regulate their own behavior. Discipline from without rather than from within.

 

[removed account4]

Often-cited is the fact that film forces you to slow down and think about what you're doing.

keenmaster486
i have been shooting LF for 30 years
i have never slowed down. i've paid attention
to all the nonsense you have to pay attention to
( stopping down, lens cap, camera shake, tripod, noticing details &c )
and when i got a DC almost 20 years ago things never changed. over the
decades that 35mm was the main consumer film and format of choice no one was slowed down
they had auto winders and bulk loaders and everything else. the slow down thing is a myth
or something that people who are waiting for the sun and clouds to look "just right" after
they did spot meter readings for 2 hours do, and i am sure there are the same sorts of people who use digital.

of course ymmv

 

[John51]

I stopped reading at point #1:

Divide that by 36 exposures and it works out to roughly 695 rolls of film.

He wouldn't have shot anywhere near 695 rolls of film in that time frame if he were paying for it.

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2015/06/evolutionofphotography.jpg

 

[keenmaster486]

keenmaster486
i have been shooting LF for 30 years
i have never slowed down. i've paid attention
to all the nonsense you have to pay attention to
( stopping down, lens cap, camera shake, tripod, noticing details &c )
and when i got a DC almost 20 years ago things never changed. over the
decades that 35mm was the main consumer film and format of choice no one was slowed down
they had auto winders and bulk loaders and everything else. the slow down thing is a myth
or something that people who are waiting for the sun and clouds to look "just right" after
they did spot meter readings for 2 hours do, and i am sure there are the same sorts of people who use digital.

of course ymmv

Makes sense to me, but have you ever watched a digital photographer point his camera at the subject and rapid fire about 2000 pictures at random angles, later spending 10 hours on the computer sifting through to find just the right one?

I have a friend who has a backlog of thousands and thousands of images to sift through on his computer.

I think I was trying to say that with film, you live in the moment and it's all about the image, whereas with digital, it's "shoot first, think later, or let the computer think for you"

 

[faberryman]

I think I was trying to say that with film, you live in the moment and it's all about the image, whereas with digital, it's "shoot first, think later, or let the computer think for you"

Is that how you shoot digital? If so, why? What does it say about you as a photographer?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm so glad that there is film and there is digital. I can work in either separately, or together. But I do not appreciate articles that set out to disparage film or digital.

 

[removed account4]

Makes sense to me, but have you ever watched a digital photographer point his camera at the subject and rapid fire about 2000 pictures at random angles, later spending 10 hours on the computer sifting through to find just the right one?

I have a friend who has a backlog of thousands and thousands of images to sift through on his computer.

I think I was trying to say that with film, you live in the moment and it's all about the image, whereas with digital, it's "shoot first, think later, or let the computer think for you"

yeah ... i see what you mean,
but there are plenty of film users who shoot the same exact way. not really sure why shooting style matters.
and if you read photrio from time to time you will see a poster say they have a backlog of ... 3 years worth of photos to work through.
i have about 17 years of backlog, maybe more... hundreds or rolls of 35+120 and i hate to say how many sheets of film...
its just a different medium...

i wish people would stop the negative nonsense about which is better or worse.
both are able to make archival silver prints or archival iron prints or PTPD prints, or gum overs or ...
people need to stop the knee jerk reactions and just enjoy what they enjoy..
i mean if you don't like a tuna salad sandwich do you go on some sort of diatribe about how a croq monsieur is that much better ...
who cares ... enjoy what you want.

 

[keenmaster486]

Is that how you shoot digital? If so, why? What does it say about you as a photographer?

But I don't shoot digital...

 

[keenmaster486]

yeah ... i see what you mean,
but there are plenty of film users who shoot the same exact way. not really sure why shooting style matters.
and if you read photrio from time to time you will see a poster say they have a backlog of ... 3 years worth of photos to work through.
i have about 17 years of backlog, maybe more... hundreds or rolls of 35+120 and i hate to say how many sheets of film...
its just a different medium...

i wish people would stop the negative nonsense about which is better or worse.
both are able to make archival silver prints or archival iron prints or PTPD prints, or gum overs or ...
people need to stop the knee jerk reactions and just enjoy what they enjoy..
i mean if you don't like a tuna salad sandwich do you go on some sort of diatribe about how a croq monsieur is that much better ...
who cares ... enjoy what you want.

True, you can shoot either film or digital flippantly. Film just punishes your wallet for it

 

[faberryman]

I think I was trying to say that with film, you live in the moment and it's all about the image, whereas with digital, it's "shoot first, think later, or let the computer think for you"

 

[faberryman]

But I don't shoot digital...

So you really don't know if the following statement you made would be true for you?

I think I was trying to say that with film, you live in the moment and it's all about the image, whereas with digital, it's "shoot first, think later, or let the computer think for you"

I don't think that statement is true for thoughtful photographers.

 

[removed account4]

True, you can shoot either film or digital flippantly. Film just punishes your wallet for it

its got nothing to do with flippantly
if that's your style how are you punished ?
i used to shoot 24-48 35mm frames ( or more ) / portrait session/assigment
when i worked for a newspaper, and when i converted to electricity
it was about the same.
i can think of worse things, than shooting enough, like ...
not getting the image you wanted to get ...

why so judgey ?

 

[RPC]

Just another article where info is twisted, distorted and incomplete to support a viewpoint, or perhaps even an agenda.

Just as irksome, it is put in the "Adorama Learning Center".

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Each photographer works differently. My old boss and colleague who was a photographer for a California university for decades probably won't touch a film camera again. I shoot both and I lean towards film. Do what works for you and leave the dogma behind.

 

[michr]

Other than wildly inaccurate cost comparisons, you are correct that what is stated in the article isn't incorrect. He is entitled to an opinion and to share it, but it's the condescending attitude and ye olde 'film vs digital' tripe that is irritating. His angle is convenience - and probably buyer's remorse after realizing what a mistake it was to sell the M3, then getting into the digital camera loop to the tune of $3500 every few years.

He then proceeds to top off the article with a big ol' middle finger to a portion of Adorama's customer base implying that film shooters will eventually see the light and convert: "So go ahead and indulge your film fantasies. You’ll learn the basis for good photography and this will ultimately make you a better digital photographer. And then, I predict, you’ll return to the convenience of digital. See you on the rebound!"

If you look at his profile, he is a writer first then a photographer. The article got him clicks and that's what he wanted.

I don't know where people get these crazy numbers for digital cameras. A digital camera does not cost $3500. You can spend that much, but it's not like you have no other choice. There is no magical digital treadmill that people are just helpless to resist buying the latest and greatest equipment. So once you stuff that $3500 back into the hat it came from, it's clear digital is always going to be cheaper. It's a car with free gas. How could it not be?

The author is correct. Most people will not jump 100% into film. Most will come back to digital, or use film a bit on the side. That's just how it is. What I don't get is being offended by the facts. Do you think people who use digital cameras, if confronted with an article which said the same with the roles reversed, would be calling for a boycott? I think most would be laughing at what would appear to be satire.

 

[barzune]

I may well be an anomaly, but I can't imagine feeling the need to capture 2000 pictures every month, on average, of anything that I see.

If I was constantly travelling in new areas of the world, maybe, but 65 pictures every single day of every year? Of what?

And, if I was so fortunate and wealthy to be able to travel the world all the time, would I worry about the cost of film?

Perhaps (totally unintended) I've wandered into a community of paparazzi, who obsessively try to capture that single instant of expression,
and sell the picture for a fortune. A total mistake, on my part.

It really is wonderful that digital technology has made photography accessible to the artless masses, the "guerrilla journalist", and
selfie-obsessed politicians, as well as for serious technical and scientific studies and, of course, serious journalism.

But, we must appreciate that even with our new digital capabilities, we can still go into just about any corner store, supermarket,
or Walmart and buy pencils, crayons, paper...but not film.

 

[RattyMouse]

I don't know where people get these crazy numbers for digital cameras. A digital camera does not cost $3500. You can spend that much, but it's not like you have no other choice. There is no magical digital treadmill that people are just helpless to resist buying the latest and greatest equipment. So once you stuff that $3500 back into the hat it came from, it's clear digital is always going to be cheaper. It's a car with free gas. How could it not be?

The author is correct. Most people will not jump 100% into film. Most will come back to digital, or use film a bit on the side. That's just how it is. What I don't get is being offended by the facts. Do you think people who use digital cameras, if confronted with an article which said the same with the roles reversed, would be calling for a boycott? I think most would be laughing at what would appear to be satire.

Just look at digital camera forums filled with people who are gung ho about their gear the way we are at APUG. You can see people who have spent many thouands of dollars on camera gear in just 3-4 years. It's all over those forums.

Sure, you can pay less if you want, but most hobbyists dont.

 

[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.​

 

[cramej]

I don't know where people get these crazy numbers for digital cameras. A digital camera does not cost $3500. You can spend that much, but it's not like you have no other choice. There is no magical digital treadmill that people are just helpless to resist buying the latest and greatest equipment. So once you stuff that $3500 back into the hat it came from, it's clear digital is always going to be cheaper. It's a car with free gas. How could it not be?

The author is correct. Most people will not jump 100% into film. Most will come back to digital, or use film a bit on the side. That's just how it is. What I don't get is being offended by the facts. Do you think people who use digital cameras, if confronted with an article which said the same with the roles reversed, would be calling for a boycott? I think most would be laughing at what would appear to be satire.

Who uses a digital camera for 50 years? Digital cameras will have electronics failures, dead pixels, batteries no longer available, etc. You will be buying another digital camera. There are many people out there who buy cameras like they do phones - every 2-3 years.

Of the 97 results on B&H for digital cameras over $3500, 21 are body only. A significant number more are body only kits with a battery and such, and the rest are with a lens and accessories. The cost of a new Leica M 240 that the author bought used? $6995. KEH has a used M3 for $919 right now. $2500 buys a lot of film and chemicals.

 

[Bob Carnie]

A Phase One can run you 80thousand plus... We have not hit the limit yet on digital capture size, getting dam close though, If I was much younger and had an income from taking photos on a daily basis this camera would really interest me.

But I am still very happy with my 4 x5 Sinar and 8x10 film cameras.