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
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
Digital doesn't need to be vilified to make analog good or desirable.
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.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.
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.
Yes, that wasn't referred to your comments, but to NB23 which dismissed digital as garbage. I was just trying to make a point
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 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.
...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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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..).
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.
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'tor couldn'tunderstand 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
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?