"In this guide we are leaving film behind as a somewhat fond memory."

[pdeeh]

I started his thread as I felt that it really was a pity that, at a time when film seems to be experiencing a small (perhaps temporary) renaissance, a newspaper as good as The Guardian would expressly ignore it.

Reading through the responses, I find it equally as much a pity (saddening, disappointing) that it has been taken as another opportunity to rehearse very tired "digital vs film" tirades.

Even more saddening and disappointing is that, once again, the very people who are perhaps partially responsible for that little renaissance are derided with scorn and contempt as "hipsters" and "art school graduates". Very inclusive.

The "argument" that "digital is not photography", by the way, commits the basic fallacy of arguing from a particular to a universal, let alone that of assuming the truth of it's conclusion in the initial premiss.

Recently I saw APUG referred to as an "angry, aging,mostly testosterone-fed film group" ... by someone who is enthusiastic about using film.

If you want film (and APUG) to survive, it will not be achieved by practising a form of cultural apartheid, nor by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you" at the digital world. If you offer rejection rather than acceptance, do not be surprised you are ignored and rejected. Contempt invites contempt.

APUG is an enormous reservoir of the most valuable skill, knowledge and experience about film. If that reservoir is not tapped and fed to others, APUG will be it's graveyard, rather than it's Academy

 

[Steve Smith]

It still co$t$ money to store all the images that are captured.

But it's hardly comparable. And also, until you have filled up your hard drive, it doesn't cost any extra.

I'm sure that no digital users think "I won't take anoher shot of that as it will cost me $0.01 extra to store it".

My point was that people are far more likely to take multiple shots now with digital than they were with film despite motor drives making it possible.

Nobody wanted to be changing rolls of film every two minutes or pay for the privillege.


Steve.

 

[batwister]

Even more saddening and disappointing is that, once again, the very people who are perhaps partially responsible for that little renaissance are derided with scorn and contempt as "hipsters" and "art school graduates". Very inclusive.

I've been doing some research lately, here's some data:

Film shooters
Retards - 5%
Social outcasts - 25%
Pensioners who refuse to change - 40%
Hipsters - 10%
Asians - 20%

 

[Steve Smith]

Film shooters
Retards - 5%
Social outcasts - 25%
Pensioners who refuse to change - 40%
Hipsters - 10%
Asians - 20%

We all know that 87.3% of all statistics are made up. Well.... 93.2% of us know that.


Steve

 

[cepwin]

Perhaps the Guardian would have been better off instead of dismissing film simply state that they're focusing on digital since that's what a majority of their readers shoot. (which let's face it is the truth.) I think both film and digital have their applications. For example if I wanted to make *absolutely sure* I captured an event I'd bring both...with the digital I can be certain, on the spot I've captured the event since I can see my result right away and there's no risk of something going wrong with the film, processing etc. I'd bring the film to get those wonderful quality images on a physical artifact that you can only get with film (not to mention it's an interesting conversation piece.)

 

[blansky]

C'mon people.

People who use and love film have to realize that they are such a tiny part of the population now that you can reasonably referred to a very small niche market.

The analogy about listening to music with records compared to CDs and iPods is pretty much the same argument.

The general public left the records, and they left film years ago. The articles are about what the general public uses, not some niche group. The only time mainstream media will give you any press is when someone is writing an article and includes it as a nostalgia piece or states that X photographer uses film. And the only reason they write it is that it seems quaint.

Film has moved into the obscure, as far as the general public knows and cares.

You are the equivalence of people who still shoot black powder instead of cartridges and get together on weekends and try to kill paper targets.

Get over it, and do what you like to do and quit worrying about what the mainstream cares about.

 

[Diapositivo]

I agree with pdeeh #26 post and I would add that this forum could be a formidable ambassador of film qualities and analogue processes if there were less of an "us-and-them" attitude.

Digital photography is photography and a digital photographer is somebody who shares with us the same passion. Mon semblable, mon frère. Comments tending to vilify digital photographers prevent this site from having a participating audience bigger than what it would otherwise reach IMO.

Sticking to analogue techniques is different from assuming a superiority attitude toward the rest of the world. That makes the forum look very narrow-minded.