digital just where it should be...

[BetterSense]

It does seem foolish to destroy the camera for "giggles", but in the scheme of things, they destroyed a $hundred dollar camera. Compared to normal advertising budgets, production costs of the video, etc, the cost of the camera was simply factored in as an expense. They aren't THAT expensive, and they certainly aren't rare...you can just go buy another one off the shelf. It would only be upset if it was something rare or of actual value. If these jokers want to blend a few hundred dollars worth of disposable imaging hardware they are welcomed to. If they had used a 1.1 megapixel camera from 2003 nobody would care, and in a few years, nobody will care about the Olympus either.

 

[Jerry Basierbe]

I saw this guy on Time Warp. You should see what happens with butane lighters in the blender.

Jerry

 

[railwayman3]

Third, lighten up and enjoy life, you take yourself WAY TOO SIRIUSLY! You will live longer.

Steve

Actually, I love my life, business, family and hobbies. I don't take myself too seriously....but it's quite fun to wind up those who do.

 

[Gene Crumly Photo]

I love it

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't take myself too seriously....but it's quite fun to wind up those who do.

I'll drink to that.

Steve

 

[Andy K]

At the end of the day, digital imaging (got it right that time ) will win the day...it's 95% there now, quicker, easier, cheaper and more reliable for the casual user, and much more versatile, productive and economic for commercial and scientific use. There are things like Astrophotography (which I do myself) where analogue cannot handle most present-day work. Being a Luddite will not alter that.

Are you just on APUG to troll? A new camera at thousands of pounds every couple of years is cheaper is it? A computer just to see the images is cheaper is it? A printer to make crappy inkjet prints is cheaper is it? CD roms to make backups of backups of backups is cheaper is it? Multiple external hard drives as 'safe' storage is cheaper is it?

If you are so desperate to see the end of real photography, why the hell are you even here?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Are you just on APUG to troll? A new camera at thousands of pounds every couple of years is cheaper is it? A computer just to see the images is cheaper is it? A printer to make crappy inkjet prints is cheaper is it? CD roms to make backups of backups of backups is cheaper is it? Multiple external hard drives as 'safe' storage is cheaper is it?

If you are so desperate to see the end of real photography, why the hell are you even here?

Ditto.

I was being polite. My Bad.

I will try it again. $50,000 is too much for a Hasselblad digital back that is not even full frame! Do you realize how much film and custom processing could be done for technology that will be obsolete in two years?

There! Now I feel better.

Steve

 

[railwayman3]

Are you just on APUG to troll? A new camera at thousands of pounds every couple of years is cheaper is it? A computer just to see the images is cheaper is it? A printer to make crappy inkjet prints is cheaper is it? CD roms to make backups of backups of backups is cheaper is it? Multiple external hard drives as 'safe' storage is cheaper is it?

If you are so desperate to see the end of real photography, why the hell are you even here?

No, not trolling, and not wanting to see the end of "real" photography. Actually, this is so way OT and from the OP, that I'm not sure what or why I'm defending, except maybe to say "live-and-let-live" to the people who use digital photography, and perhaps a little wry amusement to the obsessive analogue guys who I visualise as getting red in the face at any mention of anything which might involved pixels.

Only to prove that I am an analogue guy, my own arsenal includes over 20 analogue cameras, through Minox sub min, Pentax, Leica, Rollei, Mamiya, with a dedicated fridge of some hundreds of films and packs of paper.
I have but one digital pocket camera (not even an SLR) and two specialist digital cameras, one for photomicrography and one for astrophotography, neither usable for general imaging.

So I'll go away and shut up (hooray, they cry!), but just one further point....
Andy K doubts that digital is cheaper. I said "digital was quicker, cheaper and more reliable for the casual user"....FOR THE CASUAL USER, i.e. the 95% of people who want pics of the kids and the holidays, NOT the 5% of hobby photographers.

So, Joe or Jill Public might reply....
New camera every two years at thousands of pounds....why, we paid less that £100for the new digital, which replaced the APS one which we had for 15 years, which replaced the plastic disc camera. Won't buy another until this one breaks.
A computer to see the images...already got one.
A crappy printer...already got one. But we only print a few of the pics anyone, just email them around everyone instantly. The 6x4 inkjet prints we do for Aunt Jane and Granny are better anyway than the ones we used to get at the photo-and-dry-cleaning shop in the High Street.
CDroms to back-up....never get round to backing-up anything anyway (never kept any of the old negative-thingies when used to come back from the photo-shop),
Multiple external drives for safe storage....ditto re backing-up.
Hasselblad - is that the Swedish singer we saw on the telly?

I never said that digital was better/cheaper/quicker for the enthusiast, and convenience and versatility will obviously be a bigger factor than cost for the commercial and scientific worker.

Yes, believe it or not, I am a Luddite sometimes...but I am happy to use new technology as and when it better suits my needs and purposes. All I said was that I hated to see good equipment destroyed for supposed amusement.

I shall now go and take some real photographs over the week-end. Starting off indoors, so HP5 in the Rollei to begin. But I shall slip the digital in my shirt pocket just in case I spot Nicole Kidman riding on a unicorn, don't want to miss any piccies through fiddling around with the Rollei and tripod.

Peace.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do not know Joe or Jill Public or even Aunt Jane.

Now that you survived the digi-roast, enjoy film feast.

Steve

 

[VaryaV]

Think of it as Olympus's punishment for discontinuing the OM System.

Off with their heads!!!!

 

[Q.G.]

Punishment too for sticking to that silly sub-sub-sub-miniature sensor format.
If they must go digital, then please, please, at least do it properly.

 

[railwayman3]

I do not know Joe or Jill Public or even Aunt Jane.

Now that you survived the digi-roast, enjoy film feast.

Steve

I see them every day, but they have lots of different names.

And I don't despise them, when I see them happily enjoying their latest set of crappy 6x4 digital prints of the family, while I spend blood, sweat and tears on my next 20x16 B&W masterpiece (which will probably not come up to my expectations and finish up with the others in the cupboard...more stuff for my own kids to put in the trash when I'm no longer around).

I sometimes wonder who's got the best idea.

Anyway, 3 120 HP5 await my developing tank, and I'm sure my lifetime masterpiece must on one of the frames this time.....

 

[Prest_400]

I see them every day, but they have lots of different names.

And I don't despise them, when I see them happily enjoying their latest set of crappy 6x4 digital prints of the family

Ah my Bad, the consumer, some can even depreciate masterpieces and believe they are the king/queen of the photographers, this are the type which I hate the most, they talk like if they know everything but they know nothing. Just being manipulated.

While I spend blood, sweat and tears on my next 20x16 B&W masterpiece (which will probably not come up to my expectations and finish up with the others in the cupboard...more stuff for my own kids to put in the trash when I'm no longer around).

I sometimes wonder who's got the best idea.

Anyway, 3 120 HP5 await my developing tank, and I'm sure my lifetime masterpiece must on one of the frames this time.....

Teach your kids to appreciate you and your work and they won't trash it, show them how hard is the process of making a print. If they love you as a father, they won't throw your work and they'll be proud of their father. I say this as a son's experience.
Let's see if you find a new masterpiece on those rolls...

Edit: Forgot to comment the video! Here it is:
I had mixed feelings seeing the blending of that "camera"; I felt satisfaction as a film user, but a bit of sadness to see how it bit the dust, how the efforts spent on the manufacture went nuts.
If tom tries to blend a linhof or rollei...
the blender goes nuts

 

[railwayman3]

Perhaps I gave a wrong impression of my kids....they're always interested in my latest efforts, while not photo-hobbyists themselves, and have a strong family interest and loyalty. In particular, my daughter is a very competent watercolorist, so has an appreciation of the effort which goes into creating good pictures of any kind.

My point was that we all have different tastes in art and design, particularly from one generation to another, and I wouldn't expect my kids to necessarily like my pictures or to put them on the wall when I'm not around just because their father took them. Any value and purpose which they have is the pleasure and interest which I have in making them, and that is of this time....if others like them some time in the future, so be it.

I have many prints and slides taken by my own late father, some which were accepted for exhibition, and I wouldn't throw them out. But the most valuable ones to me are not his 20x16 landscapes, but the "family snaps" from the 1880's to the 1950's. These, and those of their own childhood, are the ones which my own kids would want me to rescue from the proverbial fire.