• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Fujifilm Exec's talk about Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ken Nadvornick said:
[...]

If he wishes to have this (very civil) discussion right out in the open in front of 78,589 sets of eyes, I'm more than willing to do that. But be forewarned. I will ask some difficult-to-evade hard questions regarding ethical behavior.

Ken
Click to expand...


It's you being very uncivil. You are very, very rude and obnoxious, in addition to having a propensity to lie, and your many threads are peppered with this behaviour of a self-appointed high priest of righteousness. Listen pop, please don't try that with me.
 
It states in your signature line that you are:

"A long-time analogue-digital and digital-analogue hybridized workflow photographer."

Given this is a self-description, and that it directly reflects the core charter of DPUG but violates the charter of APUG, can you tell me why you choose to frequent this analog-only chartered forum so often? Especially when you turn the topic to digital versus film comparisons in which you consistently champion digital?

Do you see any courtesy or ethical issues arising due to the fact that there are paying subscribers who come here with the not unreasonable expectation to avoid such digital comparisons and discussions?

And unlike you, I do fact-check my posts before submitting. I also very frequently post annotated links to the original sources, including names, dates, and topic provenance. This is time-consuming. But it's part of my professional training. I don't recall seeing much of that from you.

Ken
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Just check their annual reports. 1400 billion yen in revenue in 2000 vs about 2440 billion yen in 2014
 
Can't we all just get along?

I've said digital is superior for some things too, but it's not to stir anything up and it's certainly not because I prefer it, because I don't and in fact don't own a digital camera other than the (not bad for snapshots) one in my iPhone 6 and my old Coolpix 995 which set me back something like $600 over a decade ago but now is about ten bucks on eBay.

Bottom line for me is that I enjoy film and don't really enjoy digital. My comments about where digital beats film have been carefully limited to "objective" tests - nothing about look, process etc. And people may quibble about that and point to whatever tests, but I have seen 30x40 and larger (color - black and white is a somewhat different animal though the best B&W pigments are getting much better than they used to be) prints from digital full frame 35mm sized sensors that exceed anything I have ever seen in that size from 35mm film. Of course for the cost of those cameras I could buy a nice RZ67 outfit, several lenses, and film and processing for a LOT of shooting and then it becomes a very different comparison of 35mm sized sensors versus 6x7 film and so on.

Besides, I neither need nor want to print that large. Most of my darkroom prints are 11x14 and occasionally 16x20. I have never printed or had anything I shot printed larger than that. I wouldn't object to 20x24 if I had the easel and trays but that would be about the limit, even from my 4x5 negatives.

Arguments about which is "better" are never going to settle anything unless we are very careful in defining what criteria constitutes better. What's more they seem to miss the point. Is oil painting better than acrylic or vice versa? Watercolor? Of course not. Use the one that suits you and your vision, or that you enjoy using, and mix them if you wish. But yeah there are probably oil painting boards where watercolor discussion isn't welcome and vice versa. I get that.
 
MattKing said:
Sorry Ken, Poisson's comments about the photography market are more than fair - especially in this sub-forum....
Click to expand...

Since when the glorification of a proprietary technology (digital imagery) is fair on APUG?
Digital violates all essential photographic freedoms while being inferior to film in just about every essential aspect.

No sorry and no excuses.
 
being told to leave apug because
their signature says they do hybrid work, is pretty low.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Can I ask APUGers (the quote above is just one example) to reconsider which messages are relevant to the whole community and which ones should be sent privately?

I would also like to ask a less 'word by word' interpretation of the messages from non-native English speakers (such as myself). Language skills and cultural differences (e.g. acceptable vs. unacceptable ways to disagree) matter a lot. So perhaps some of the messages in this thread are being erroneously understood as "you have to" or "it's your fault". After 2 years living in the UK (I'm from Spain), I still struggle to find the right words and tone and, at the same time, to interpret correctly the nuances of what "locals" tell me.

Thanks.
 
Well I am just a regular guy and cannot save the world with shopping. However when I buy some film then I buy Tri-X and HP5.
 
Thanks for pointing that out. The 8X10 was not optically printed- it was scanned. So it was limited by the scanner resolution. Which in this case was 745 dpi. Scanning 35mm film at 745 dpi (ppi, actually) would give a digital image containing .74 MP, and a possible linear resolution of 14.6 lp/mm.
Is that a fair measure of the resolution potential of 8X10 film?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

+1
 
Roger Cole said:
Can't we all just get along?
Click to expand...

Probably not since that is one of the downsides of the internet, a small number of people out of the total membership constantly lobbing virtual grenades at each other. I gave some personal experience in having used both mediums for decades in post #94, I won't post that again because I only need to make those points once and I know it may ruffle feathers of certain birds by doing so but I stand by those points, the proof is in my pudding.

What I don't get are the tech wars. Good photography is far less about tech specs than it is real talent and emotion, having a photograph that connects with it's viewer regardless of medium used. I think one of the most off-putting assertions that either camp makes is that their medium is better because of tech specs...and then you look at the work they make and all too often it totally stinks.

So how about we all put a little more emotion into our photographs than endless posts about which is better and why?

That is...unlesss all photography is to some on here is the constant back and forth or worse...the inciting of battles on behalf of a war that ended a long time ago.
 

Attachments

  • Bang-Bang.jpg
    181 KB · Views: 153
+1 on what AI print says.

To add, I am shooting B/W film because it's a fun. If it was more fun to shoot a DSLR then I would buy one of those.
 
Ai Print said:
...Good photography is far less about tech specs than it is real talent and emotion..
Click to expand...

So, you don't miss Kodachrome?
Once you get to the emotion and talent plateau, Photoshop is good enough?

How do you make up for the archival nature of film?
 
georg16nik said:
So, you don't miss Kodachrome?
Once you get to the emotion and talent plateau, Photoshop is good enough?

How do you make up for the archival nature of film?
Click to expand...

I do not miss Kodachrome. I preferred prints back in the day and shot B/W or Kodak Gold. On the archival thing I do not worry about it that much. I have negatives, prints, digital files and on and on and I am sure when I am dead I will not be taking them with me. My kids and grandkids have little interest in it all now and I doubt they will be sitting around on Saturday nights scanning old negatives. Truth be told I hardly look at the old stuff myself. I have photo albums that have not been opened for 40 years. I have a trunk of my parents and grandparents pictures and some of them date back to the late 1800's. I looked at all of them when they came to me in 1975. That was the last time I even opened the trunk. I did notice that pictures without a notation on the back did not mean much as I do not know who the people were. They were dead before I was born and I do not know if they are a distant relative or some guy from town.
 
georg16nik said:
So, you don't miss Kodachrome?
Once you get to the emotion and talent plateau, Photoshop is good enough?

How do you make up for the archival nature of film?
Click to expand...

Sure I miss Kodachrome, but it is gone and not coming back so I use materials that have a lot of long term stability in order to fulfill the analog side of my creative diet. Being 2016 and all, I am truly impressed and inspired by how many films we still have to choose from and how inexpensive it still is.

As far as Photoshop, it is a tool for processing images, you can go nuts with it and be the digital Jerry Uelsmann or you can use it like I do to make things press or print ready...just like publications have done with scanned files since the early 90's which is how long I have been using it.

As far as archiving goes, I have quite the infrastructure dedicated to that including offsite storage, I pay close attention to hardware, software and camera file types for future proofing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
georg16nik said:
So, you don't miss Kodachrome?
Once you get to the emotion and talent plateau, Photoshop is good enough?

How do you make up for the archival nature of film?
Click to expand...

No, I always preferred the skies that Ektachrome and Fujichrome provided.

Fauxto$hop is good enough to add jumping sharks to hoax photographs and to waste good disk space on a computer.
 
Why can't people just let others use whatever technology they want, rather than arguing over "superiority"? The fact is, the "superior" technology is whichever gets you out with a camera making images. Either works well, if the required passion is there. Neither works, if the passion isn't. Whenever I see anyone spout off about this digital vs analog thing, I can't help but think they're arguing to justify their own choices, or feel threatened by those that choose the other.
I am 100% analog. Film/darkroom only. I am intrigued by the advances (and possibilities) of hybrid negative making when it comes to alt processes, though I haven't explored it. Still, I know people doing excellent digital work, and don't feel the least bit threatened by their choices.
Whichever you choose, have fun, be creative, and strive to have tomorrow's photos better than yesterday's.
 
eddie said:
Why can't people just let others use whatever technology they want, rather than arguing over "superiority"?
Click to expand...

Why indeed? Except my posts were not about technology used. They were about courtesy, respect, common sense, and appropriateness towards others in this venue.

I don't expect to see any attempt by the individual in question to address my very civil questions or to discuss those issues. Never did...

Ken
 
It is not about being threatened by digital photography, it is choosing to be in a film only environment without the digi-heads violating the APUG guidelines to shove their choice on the rest of us. The digi-heads are being rude and childish pushing their agenda on those that chose to be here enjoying film. If a film user were to pull the same BS on a digital website, all Hell would break loose. I hope when the new APUG-DPUG website is released that the digi-trolls are kept out of APUG and the film users are kept out of DPUG and let each to be to their own.
 
It looks like the original topic ran its course a few pages back. Let's move on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register