Film really is superior

The Gap

H
The Gap

  • 2
  • 2
  • 31
Ithaki Steps

H
Ithaki Steps

  • 2
  • 0
  • 62
Pitt River Bridge

D
Pitt River Bridge

  • 4
  • 0
  • 68

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,001
Messages
2,784,399
Members
99,764
Latest member
BiglerRaw
Recent bookmarks
0

MaximusM3

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
754
Location
NY
Format
35mm RF
Oh, ok, I get it... Digital is a self-cleansing garbage as it auto-destroys itself with time as opposed to film garbage that is so resilient and pollutes our houses. Therefore Digital is da best.

By the way, are we still on APUG or has this forum become a pro-digital forum and I didn't know it? I'm really sorry to hurt all the digital lovers of this forum :whistling:

You seem a little angry. Who cares? There is no best this or that. Use what you like and make good art, if that's what you wish. So maybe film is better for archival purposes (or maybe not if your house burns down) but this horse surely has been beaten to death a gazillion times.
 

Pioneer

Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
3,879
Location
Elko, Nevada
Format
Multi Format
Well, if someone is going to start a forum thread by saying that "Film is Superior..." then the immediate followup has to be...superior to what? The title ensured the result.
 

ambaker

Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
661
Location
Missouri, US
Format
Multi Format
Being superior does not necessarily make the alternative worthless, or garbage.

I prefer film over digital. I shoot both, and each has its strengths, as each its weaknesses.

To my mind, to be dismissive of either is a fool's notion.

If digital images are garbage APUG, as well as almost every other Internet destination, is ate up with garbage. Much like the days of our neighbor's vacation slides, a lot of bad images make the rounds. At the same time, were it not for digital images we would not see a lot of the fine analog work we so admire.

As already mentioned, every image you see here is digital. It may not have started out that way, but it is now.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

Roger Cole

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
Oh, ok, I get it... Digital is a self-cleansing garbage as it auto-destroys itself with time as opposed to film garbage that is so resilient and pollutes our houses. Therefore Digital is da best.

By the way, are we still on APUG or has this forum become a pro-digital forum and I didn't know it? I'm really sorry to hurt all the digital lovers of this forum :whistling:

You seem to be confusing "pro film" with "anti digital." One can be pro film without being anti-digital.

I don't love digital. I was going to say - I plan to get a DSLR for the reasons above, but I don't particularly enjoy using digital. I enjoy film for those reasons above - I've always loved the process, which I learned when it was all there was, and I like feeling like I'm actually crafting something, and I work with computers all the time and like to get away from them. But those don't apply to everyone.
 

eddie

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
3,258
Location
Northern Vir
Format
Multi Format
I don't do any digital but, when I see anti-digital arguments spoken in absolutes ("it's all garbage"), I can't help but dismiss it. That sort of arrogance does nothing to promote traditional methods. The (small d) democratization of image making has been enhanced by digital possibilities. There may be more "garbage" created but, on balance, I think there's been more positive than negative. For example, a hybrid workflow has allowed a rediscovery of contact printing processes. Digital may actually save some historic processes from the dustbin of history.
 

clayne

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
2,764
Location
San Francisc
Format
Multi Format
Digital doesn't need to be vilified to make analog good or desirable.

Absolutely agreed and for the most part your typical analog shooter doesn't sit around and talk about how much they hate digital.

However it should be noted that the digital crowd isn't exactly kind nor respectful towards their analog "brethren". They disparage film regularly, making ever less subtle cracks about it, it's usefulness, its antiquity, etc. Everyone here knows what I'm talking about and it's a commonly disrespectful ignorant thing that plenty of them spout out at any opportunity and myself I'm sick and tired of hearing that crap from said fauxtographers.

I don't think digital is garbage but I do think there's a unmistakably more amount of garbage as a result of it.
 

eddie

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
3,258
Location
Northern Vir
Format
Multi Format
However it should be noted that the digital crowd isn't exactly kind nor respectful towards their analog "brethren". They disparage film regularly, making ever less subtle cracks about it, it's usefulness, its antiquity, etc.
I don't have a single digital friend who disparages film. To the contrary, they all started with film, and often talk of it fondly. They have the utmost respect for the commitment film requires (having been there themselves). Perhaps the disrespect is from a younger crowd, without an analog background. For those of us of a certain age,I don't think we experience the dismissal you mention.
 

Prof_Pixel

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
1,917
Location
Penfield, NY
Format
35mm
However it should be noted that the digital crowd isn't exactly kind nor respectful towards their analog "brethren". They disparage film regularly, making ever less subtle cracks about it, it's usefulness, its antiquity, etc.

It's not a technologies fault that some of its users make poor comments; heck, it even happens with analog users here on APUG.
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,462
Location
.
Format
Digital
Absolutely agreed and for the most part your typical analog shooter doesn't sit around and talk about how much they hate digital.

However it should be noted that the digital crowd isn't exactly kind nor respectful towards their analog "brethren". They disparage film regularly, making ever less subtle cracks about it, it's usefulness, its antiquity, etc. Everyone here knows what I'm talking about and it's a commonly disrespectful ignorant thing that plenty of them spout out at any opportunity and myself I'm sick and tired of hearing that crap from said fauxtographers.

I don't think digital is garbage but I do think there's a unmistakably more amount of garbage as a result of it.



I agree fully with this! Additionally, if the fauxtographers (what a terrific term!) had started, learned and skilled up with film over several decades, they may just have made a better name for themselves in digital. There are APUG members here who produce beautiful work in digital, not just analogue. Those that know the craft can produce a beautiful image from either method.

Like so many others, I don't ever use a digital camera to hide faults or problems in my photography. I did all that with film and that is still the very best medium to learn from irrespective of knowledge or experience.
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
I no is angry. never me angry. I is be honest: I is no like digital. I is free speech ok. Tenkyouverymatch! :smile:
 

Toffle

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
1,930
Location
Point Pelee,
Format
Multi Format
I don't have a single digital friend who disparages film. To the contrary, they all started with film, and often talk of it fondly. They have the utmost respect for the commitment film requires (having been there themselves). Perhaps the disrespect is from a younger crowd, without an analog background. For those of us of a certain age,I don't think we experience the dismissal you mention.

+1... in so may ways.

I have encountered only one person in the last decade who has disparaged film in the very least - that is, outside this particular forum, where, sadly, it seems to have become a regular occurrence.

...your typical analog shooter doesn't sit around and talk about how much they hate digital.

Except on APUG.

However it should be noted that the digital crowd isn't exactly kind nor respectful towards their analog "brethren". They disparage film regularly, making ever less subtle cracks about it, it's usefulness, its antiquity, etc. Everyone here knows what I'm talking about and it's a commonly disrespectful ignorant thing that plenty of them spout out at any opportunity and myself I'm sick and tired of hearing that crap from said fauxtographers.

In a former life, I used to teach essay writing, in which, if you are to make a blanket statement that begins "everyone knows", it had better be both accurate and provable. The above statement is neither. I do not believe I am being deliberately obtuse in saying I have had very little experience with the behaviours you mention. If you truly live among such intolerant people, you have my sympathy, but I can assure you that those attitudes are not nearly so widespread as you imagine.

I have mentored many young photographers over the years, most of whom never will spend much time with analog cameras. Nonetheless, they sought me out because I am "the film guy", not in spite of it. Most people I know are respectful of my choice of cameras and the work I do with them. I acknowledge and return their respect by refusing to pass judgement on their choice of cameras or to call them smug and demeaning names behind their backs.

Regards,
Tom
 

clayne

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
2,764
Location
San Francisc
Format
Multi Format
The fact that we have threads here about "what kind of reactions do you get when people see you shooting film" evidences the point I was trying to make - that a reaction anywhere from disrespect to ambivalence to respect is expected from other photographers or everyday people. Personally I'd rather they not care what medium I'm using (unless they love film and want to talk shop).

Additionally, this thread is an exception to the typical threads around APUG. We don't sit here and regularly create digital diss threads - so I stand by my comment that "your typical analog shooter doesn't sit around and talk about how much they hate digital" and add an explicit "all the time" since it was implied. If one medium wasn't encroaching on another medium's materials then I think there would be a heck of a lot less tension between the two camps.

Of course I hate digital but I don't need to remind everyone here of it. I use it when it's appropriate for the particular job. When the particular job is anything artistic or serious in approach, I don't even consider it. Even if I wanted to, I don't have a digital camera other than a phone.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
4,942
Location
Monroe, WA, USA
Format
Multi Format
If one medium wasn't encroaching on another medium's materials then I think there would be a heck of a lot less tension between the two camps.

For better or worse, this goes directly to the heart of the issue.

To be constantly reminded that yet another film product, another piece of darkroom equipment, another camera manufacturer are going bust because, well, don't you film idiots realize that digital imaging technology has rendered everything you value, and use, and need, obsolete? What's wrong with you? Can't you see the obvious? Can't you read the writing on the wall. Everyone else can.

No?

Well then, today is your lucky day. Because we're here to constantly remind you of those obvious facts. Over and over. Again and again. Until you scream for mercy. And then ask you why you're screaming. What's wrong with you? Why are you so upset? It's because technology has passed you by, isn't it? Well, there are reasons for that, you know. Listen up. Let us tell you about them.

Arrggghhhh!!! Give it a rest. Please!!

It never seems to dawn on these people that if we didn't already know those obvious facts, we wouldn't already be here. We are here precisely because we know those facts. This place itself exists and is here for precisely the same reason.

Truth be told, we probably knew those facts long before you did, since we were the ones witnessing the loss of equipment and materials. The term I use with my wife is a "distressed purchase." It means I have to buy something, usually expensive, right NOW, regardless of whether I can afford it or not. Because if I don't, it's about to go out of production. Forever.

I bought my Saunders easel that way. And my seventeen 8x10 Fidelity film holders. And my 180mm f/2.8 ED Nikkor. And my Kodachrome. And now my Provia 400 120 rolls. I could name a dozen others.

So, we know what is going on, OK? We get it. We are cognizant. We are situationally aware. We are not the dullest knives in the kitchen. We didn't just fall off the turnip truck. So enough already.

You all know who you are. And for all of this you continue to receive more and more of those little Alfred Hitchcock awards. As gentle reminders to please stop. And you're probably not even situationally aware enough to realize why you're getting them...

Ken
 
Last edited by a moderator:

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
i don't really have trouble buying anything i need to use
or have needed to use over the last 10 or 15 years.
film or paper or chemistry, and sadly it was long before
computerized cameras appeared on the scene that films and papers
and equipment became scarce or obsolete or whatever ...
i worked for someone who had an old 5x7 solar enlarger
it was a huge sort of beast and made beautiful enlargements.
unfortunately in around 1980 bulbs for it stopped being produced ...
they were big incandescent bulbs with a long long neck ... the lady i worked for
hoarded them by calling every shop within 100 miles ( or so she said ) and buying all their stock.
i only learned this because she said " hey john pull that box out i want to show you something"
and i looked at maybe 50 of these bulbs all stacked in a huge box ..
she also had tray rockers ... steel flat, with a cam/rotating rod. she bought it in the 1940s
and i have never seen anything like it before or since ....
i've been searching for cans of GAF UNIVERSAL DEVELOPER for nearly 20 years, they haven't been made since the 70s ...
but the 20year old can that was holding up a window in a studio i rented .. a can that went through probably 15 harsh winters
and 120degree summers still mixed the best 5 gallons of any developer i have ever used, or at least "store bought developer"
and while people are so sad with the advent of digital "stuff" you only read it in digital beat down threads, otherwise
all i read about here on apug is how they bought an enlarger for 15$ and only a few years ago cost 1000.00, or a whole
professional photolab's darkroom was in the dumpster for the taking, or the nikon brag thread
where people can now afford to have 500 nikon cameras and accessories because they are finally affordable.
i've gotten some good deals, but they haven't been recent since some guy in nevada has spread such good press
on what used to be lenses headed for the dump. at least i know i'll get a good deal when i sell my 5 or 10dollar lenses
purchased before the "brass and glass gold rush" because there are always and will always be people looking for a silver bullet ...
heck, lomo is remanufacturing a petzval lens, lens baby has made a imagon lens ... these are things that WERE obsolete
and out of production or scarce but they have come back to haunt us through cheezy misuse and bad photography in both mediums ...
and at least now people who want specialty film sizes don't have to get orders for $15,000 of film ( a pallet ) through 1 manufacturer
they can fill their fridge once a year when ilford does their boutique size cut+run ..
as i said previously in a thread ( was it this one? ) im not a pessimistic or an optimist but a realist i guess
and while there is all sorts of bad-stuff that happened because fewer people use film cameras than in 1980, the sun hasn't set
and there is still plenty of film and paper and equipment &c to last beyond my lifetime.

its too bad if someone googles " is film superior" they will get a thread full of posts complaining about digital, instead of bragging how
film might or might not be a better medium ...

YMMV
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MaximusM3

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
754
Location
NY
Format
35mm RF
i am not really sure ken
i don't really have trouble buying anything i need to use
or have needed to use over the last 10 or 15 years.
film or paper or chemistry, and sadly it was long before
computerized cameras appeared on the scene that films and papers
and equipment became scarce or obsolete or whatever ...
i worked for someone who had an old 5x7 solar enlarger
it was a huge sort of beast and made beautiful enlargements.
unfortunately in around 1980 bulbs for it stopped being produced ...
they were big incandescent bulbs with a long long neck ... the lady i worked for
hoarded them by calling every shop within 100 miles ( or so she said ) and buying all their stock.
she also had tray rockers ... steel flat, with a cam and rotating rod. she bought it in the 1940s
and i have never seen anything like it since .... i've been searching for cans of GAF UNIVERSAL DEVELOPER
for nearly 20 years, they haven't been made since the 70s ...
and while people are so sad with the advent of digital "stuff" all i read about here on apug
is how they bought an enlarger for 15$ and only a few years ago cost 1000.00, or the nikon brag thread
where people can now afford to have 500 nikon cameras and accessories because they are finally affordable.
i've gotten some good deals, but they haven't been recent since some guy in nevada has spread such good press
on what used to be lenses headed for the dump. but i know i'll get a good deal when i sell my 5 or 10dollar lenses
purchased before the brass and glass rush because there are always and will always be people looking for a silver bullet ...
heck, lomo is remanufacturing a petzval lens, lens baby has made a imagon lens ... these are things that WERE obsolete
and out of production or scarce but they have come back to haunt us through cheezy misuse and bad photography in both mediums ...

YMMV

Yes, Master J..the other side of the coin...or looking at a glass half full :smile:

Things were indeed disappearing well before the advent of digital photography but of course the bitching was done around a dinner table (maybe) and not paraded incessantly on internet forums. Things change, and there is no stopping that. I guess I feel lucky that there is digital so I can still make photogravures...but maybe the reason why I have to use a hybrid process is because of digital..what came first..the chicken or the egg? :smile:

As far as I am concerned, I am not going to let suicidal thoughts in my head because Agfa Brovira or Panatomic X are no longer available, or constantly debate in my head whether I should ever use a digital camera or not. Okay, we've established that film (may be) superior for archival purposes, but right now, I am more concerned with finding something compelling to photograph, (mostly with film and sometimes digital) making a good print, exhibiting, finding buyers and have lots of fun in the process. Life's way too short to be miserable and whine about trivial stuff.
 

one90guy

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Full time RVer
Format
Multi Format
Digital has made great film cameras affordable for me and my first love will always be B/W film. But I now use digital also and my digital has helped me to maker photos with film. Also digital for me is great when the grandchildren are visiting. I think they are both great and each are capable of making art or snap shots.

David
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
4,942
Location
Monroe, WA, USA
Format
Multi Format
Don't miss the obvious point of my post. It's really not all about the fact that some stuff is no longer available...

Ken
 

MaximusM3

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
754
Location
NY
Format
35mm RF
Don't miss the obvious point of my post. It's really not all about the fact that some stuff is no longer available...

Ken


Hi Ken,

Not sure if that is in response to my post, but yes, I certainly did get your point. It's the constant reminders, the whining, complaining, and yes, even comparing. Time to let it go already. It is what it is.
 

Alan Gales

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format
As far as I am concerned, I am not going to let suicidal thoughts in my head because Agfa Brovira or Panatomic X are no longer available, or constantly debate in my head whether I should ever use a digital camera or not. Okay, we've established that film (may be) superior for archival purposes, but right now, I am more concerned with finding something compelling to photograph, (mostly with film and sometimes digital) making a good print, exhibiting, finding buyers and have lots of fun in the process. Life's way too short to be miserable and whine about trivial stuff.

Amen!

Right now I'm suffering from shingles. All I care about is getting well again so I can go out and shoot!
 

Paul Glover

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
74
Location
Salem, VA
Format
Multi Format
For better or worse, this goes directly to the heart of the issue.

To be constantly reminded that yet another film product, another piece of darkroom equipment, another camera manufacturer are going bust because, well, don't you film idiots realize that digital imaging technology has rendered everything you value, and use, and need, obsolete? What's wrong with you? Can't you see the obvious? Can't you read the writing on the wall. Everyone else can.

No?

This is the thing.

I don't care whether someone shoots film or digital, or both, or neither. I don't begrudge anyone else of their choice, but I do ask that my choices be respected in kind.

I *do* care when someone declares that my choice is not valid because it's not the same as theirs. These are the people who respond to every story about Kodak, every article exploring film with a "what, film is still not dead? WTF? Just shoot digital like I do.", who react with entirely undisguised glee and triumph when bad news shows up. I don't get these people at all. I don't get why they seem so deeply emotionally invested in film going away for good and view every mention of it as an opportunity to belittle anyone who still cares about it. It's like the very existence of film and people who shoot it is a personal affront to them, a middle finger raised at their own obviously "much better" way of doing things, which everyone should do because they say so.

Of course these are the same people who will argue endlessly online over miniscule differences in DSLR performance and go to war over brand choice, or declare loudly that "no professional would ever...". I've come to the conclusion that they are best ignored since they're likely too busy defending their choices to ever actually exercise them.
 

jimcollum

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
214
Format
Multi Format
I've been shooting film since 1977 and digital since the late 90's. I still shoot both, and exhibit & sell work from both. I used to be a subscriber to Apug.. enjoyed the community. I still read posts, and find the information incredibly useful. I also frequent most other forums, and Film bashing, for the most part, disappeared long ago (ok.. there may still be some in dpreview, but i'd swear that forum is inhabited entirely by 14 year old boys with personality disorders.. :smile: ).

I've never once felt my film work belittled by anyone in the digital realm...ever. This was the only place I ever felt that, because of a choice of capture, my work was, frankly, garbage (and in most cases, without ever having it seen to be judged). If respect is expected.. it has to be a two way street. Paul.. your comment could be equally appropriate if you substitute film for digital (that's not to imply that you don't respect work for works sake.. )

There are probably more photographers that shoot both film and digital, than just film. There's a lot of experience that gets lost once someone decides that their digital work might have artistic merit, and that work, and the photographer, become marginalized here.



This is the thing.

I don't care whether someone shoots film or digital, or both, or neither. I don't begrudge anyone else of their choice, but I do ask that my choices be respected in kind.

I *do* care when someone declares that my choice is not valid because it's not the same as theirs. These are the people who respond to every story about Kodak, every article exploring film with a "what, film is still not dead? WTF? Just shoot digital like I do.", who react with entirely undisguised glee and triumph when bad news shows up. I don't get these people at all. I don't get why they seem so deeply emotionally invested in film going away for good and view every mention of it as an opportunity to belittle anyone who still cares about it. It's like the very existence of film and people who shoot it is a personal affront to them, a middle finger raised at their own obviously "much better" way of doing things, which everyone should do because they say so.

Of course these are the same people who will argue endlessly online over miniscule differences in DSLR performance and go to war over brand choice, or declare loudly that "no professional would ever...". I've come to the conclusion that they are best ignored since they're likely too busy defending their choices to ever actually exercise them.
 

MaximusM3

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
754
Location
NY
Format
35mm RF
I've been shooting film since 1977 and digital since the late 90's. I still shoot both, and exhibit & sell work from both. I used to be a subscriber to Apug.. enjoyed the community. I still read posts, and find the information incredibly useful. I also frequent most other forums, and Film bashing, for the most part, disappeared long ago (ok.. there may still be some in dpreview, but i'd swear that forum is inhabited entirely by 14 year old boys with personality disorders.. :smile: ).

I've never once felt my film work belittled by anyone in the digital realm...ever. This was the only place I ever felt that, because of a choice of capture, my work was, frankly, garbage (and in most cases, without ever having it seen to be judged). If respect is expected.. it has to be a two way street. Paul.. your comment could be equally appropriate if you substitute film for digital (that's not to imply that you don't respect work for works sake.. )

There are probably more photographers that shoot both film and digital, than just film. There's a lot of experience that gets lost once someone decides that their digital work might have artistic merit, and that work, and the photographer, become marginalized here.

Well, this is APUG after all and it is to be expected. Many esteemed contributors to this community have been lost over the years exactly because of that. Yes, it is the Analog Photography User Group, but there is a difference between enjoying the look of film, extolling its virtues, longing for the past, etc, and dealing with absolutes and constant comparisons which invariably lead to useless confrontations (film is better/digital is garbage arguments), every time a thread like this appears. Having said that, usually those fruitless arguments come from those who have absolutely nothing to show for it (and I mean no compelling work to speak of). A lot of those same people would benefit from a gigantic piece of humble pie while learning how to walk the talk. Sounds blunt but that's how I see it.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
4,942
Location
Monroe, WA, USA
Format
Multi Format
Not sure if that is in response to my post, but yes, I certainly did get your point. It's the constant reminders, the whining, complaining, and yes, even comparing. Time to let it go already. It is what it is.

Not you, Max. Yours is the example I wish many of the others could take. You seem to quietly and effectively use the tools that simply give you the results seek. Then you positively participate in the community by often sharing those results in the galleries. And pass along helpful comments to others in those same galleries, or in other threads.

What you don't do is constantly beat others over the head with your perceived superiority of the tools you chose. Regardless of which side those tools evolved from. Or incessantly point out what has happened in the film-based marketplace over the last decade, as if the rest of us hadn't already seen it for ourselves. Or worse, saw it but didn't—or couldn't—understand it. Sheesh.

No, the ones I'm referring to are the ones who are here, and welcomed, but who never post any photographs, never participate in any of the print exchanges, never contribute to the analog side of discussions, don't occasionally stop by to welcome a newcomer, never share when they have found a neat film camera or darkroom trick, don't offer their assistance to other members, or do much of anything else.

All they seem to want to do is to remind us, again and again and again, directly or indirectly, how backward we really are. They're open-minded about it, of course, and so can accept our backwardness with grace. But they just want to make certain we know, that they know, that we have been left behind technologically. And as well, by inference, that they have not.

Trust me. I have not been left behind technologically. Nor have you. Nor have most of the others here. But it does get frustrating and tiresome hearing over and over and over again about how we, in fact, have been.

Does it ever occur to these individuals to just use whatever technology they want to use, then let the others choose to use what they want to use, then respect the charter here and politely limit the discussions of those choices as appropriate?

Sometimes I do wonder if concentrating so much film-based expertise in one place was such a good idea. Often it seems that in doing so all that has been accomplished was to provide a target-rich environment. People with nothing better to do can then join up just to amuse themselves by shooting the fish in the barrel.

And I say again, you guys know who you are...

Ken
 

MaximusM3

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
754
Location
NY
Format
35mm RF
Not you, Max. Yours is the example I wish many of the others could take. You seem to quietly and effectively use the tools that simply give you the results seek. Then you positively participate in the community by often sharing those results in the galleries. And pass along helpful comments to others in those same galleries, or in other threads.

What you don't do is constantly beat others over the head with your perceived superiority of the tools you chose. Regardless of which side those tools evolved from. Or incessantly point out what has happened in the film-based marketplace over the last decade, as if the rest of us hadn't already seen it for ourselves. Or worse, saw it but didn't—or couldn't—understand it. Sheesh.

No, the ones I'm referring to are the ones who are here, and welcomed, but who never post any photographs, never participate in any of the print exchanges, never contribute to the analog side of discussions, don't occasionally stop by to welcome a newcomer, never share when they have found a neat film camera or darkroom trick, don't offer their assistance to other members, or do much of anything else.

All they seem to want to do is to remind us, again and again and again, directly or indirectly, how backward we really are. They're open-minded about it, of course, and so can accept our backwardness with grace. But they just want to make certain we know, that they know, that we have been left behind technologically. And as well, by inference, that they have not.

Trust me. I have not been left behind technologically. Nor have you. Nor have most of the others here. But it does get frustrating and tiresome hearing over and over and over again about how we, in fact, have been.

Does it ever occur to these individuals to just use whatever technology they want to use, then let the others choose to use what they want to use, then respect the charter here and politely limit the discussions of those choices as appropriate?

Sometimes I do wonder if concentrating so much film-based expertise in one place was such a good idea. Often it seems that in doing so all that has been accomplished was to provide a target-rich environment. People with nothing better to do can then join up just to amuse themselves by shooting the fish in the barrel.

And I say again, you guys know who you are...

Ken

Ha yes, Ken, I could not have said it better and I fully agree with every word you've written. Before I leave this fun thread :smile: I do want to make a real-life point, based on facts, to really put it in perspective for the guys you are referring to: I have a Photogravure show hanging at The Lionheart Gallery since July 27th and until November 1st and I must have talked to well over 100 people at this point, and sold quite a few prints. Not ONE SINGLE PERSON (and I'm talking about a consumer/buyer/collector) asked ONE SINGLE QUESTION about whether the original image was captured on film or by a sensor. NOT ONE. In fact, few, if any had any idea of what a Photogravure is, let alone the fact that I'm making digital positives for the process. They loved the images, they loved the prints, they liked my work. Just as simple as that. But, three (3) people did ask if I was still shooting film..and guess what? They were photographers of course. Just curious, they didn't argue, they thought it was great, were fun to talk to...and didn't buy anything :smile:

Things really have to be put in perspective because at the end of the day, few really care. Make the choice, enjoy the ride, live and let live, make good art and don't forget to have fun and smile :smile:
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom