Whatever "young people" is ain't us.
The lack of posted results on threads just prove that many users on here are full of hot air. The 110 thread is one of the busiest on APUG. I'd wager it's because the people shooting 110 are doing it for the fun of it and really no other reason.
Exactly. It is hard to lord over someone in the 110 thread. But elsewhere, all talk, no show.
www.lomography.com really is an awesome site. People who are actually taking photos and showing them. Unlike the many pretenders here.
lomography encourages film photography. Many on photrio are hoping for its demise, so they can reminisce about the times when they pretended they took photos…
I don't, but then again I wouldn't want it to. Places like Lomography have a great thing going and are quite different from Photrio, and I'm happy that they both exist. Specialty communities are fine with me.Who here actually thinks photrio represents what is happening in the film world?
Blah blah blah I take l photos but noone can see them blah blah blah blah
It actually makes sense why people like you keep ringing the death-knell for film photography. Because if that happens you can then claim well you would be taking pics, but cant anymore. But man, if you could, you’d be showing the best stuff..
Yep, if you don't post your photographs on the internet, they don't exist, and you are not a real photographer. I find that sort of hilarious coming from an avowed analog photographer.
I like some of the photography over at the Lomography site. Some of it is very creative, but not every shot on purple film is a masterpiece.
You know what sort of annoys me? People lecturing me about how I am lecturing them.
Blah blah blah I take l photos but noone can see them blah blah blah blah
It actually makes sense why people like you keep ringing the death-knell for film photography. Because if that happens you can then claim well you would be taking pics, but cant anymore. But man, if you could, you’d be showing the best stuff..
I take it your replay was directed at someone else because I have never rung the death-knell for film photography.
For the past four or five years I have almost exclusively made platinum/palladium and palladium over pigment prints. I do not have a scanner large enough to scan them, and even if I did, I would not waste the time and effort to scan and upload them here just to respond to your childish taunts. I use to have a website with some of my work on it. If you look hard enough you can find it on the internet archive.
I have posted four photographs here. Click on my name and go to the media tab. That will prove that I have taken at least four photographs in the past 50 years...unless I stole them off the internet, and uploaded them here to fake you out.
I never post photos on the internet; not anymore at least. I do make real prints, and have hundreds of them, some pretty darn big in custom hardware frames, those made by me too. So I guess those don't even exist according to web ideology. But for me, they're far more real than anything floating around in cyberspace. And seeing some of them has probably converted more people back to serious film use than all the diatribes like particular thread ever will.
Wow..........interesting.!There is still a one hour photo open within 30 miles (which in Southern California is considered kind of close). I used them when I started testing old/acquired cameras a few years ago. They do C-41 plus offer passport photos, restorations of old photos, enlargements, and studio work by appt. Interestingly , now they are only open Saturday and Sunday. If interested it is Nice One Hour Photo in Fontana, California.
But wasting bandwidth could be considered art.A discussion of what is art is just a waste of bandwidth.
Hmmm... my wife came back from shopping the other days with a few more vinyl discs, and frankly, of recording which were made long before she was ever born.
As far as not posting examples of my photos, besides the web being a pathetic medium for communicating any kind of real hue or tonality nuance, it's not a matter of policy or ideology with me. I just have other things to do. I maintained a web presence of my own for quite awhile, and although it attracted web surfers from every developed country in the world, I quickly learned that web surfers and real print collectors are entirely different animals with little in common. I have set up a deluxe new copystand capable of digital capture, but that will come into use primarily in relation to estate purposes, cataloging the print collection. Perhaps in another year or two from now, not sooner. And that will be an appropriate time to perhaps begin a new website as well as once in awhile post an image. But all of that will based upon copystand use in reference to actual extant mounted darkroom prints, not film scans or digital scene capture. In the meantime, I still have about 200 more key prints needing to be drymounting, plus color printing. Gotta do it while I still can. Web related imaging is a low priority.
Have to say that these Google-powered AI forum bots are becoming better and better. You'd be forgiven for thinking some of the posts they generate were written by real, profoundly sociopathic individuals with a penchant for humble-bragging.
Now if they only got the username capitalisation right they'd be close to perfect.
At my advanced age I find myself frequently thinking about dying. Specifically I wonder what is going to happen to the trillions of digital photos on computers, phones, iPads et al. I don’t think that the offspring and inheritors of these devices are going to give a s**t about what’s on them. Most of these trillions of images will be simply discarded. This will not be the case for prints. Even family photo albums will be passed down, same as the ones I have which I grabbed when they were on their way to the trash. Certainly prints and framed prints will be sought by the kids when their folks have gone to the great darkroom in the sky. They won’t have a clue or any interest in digital. Just my opinion.
That’s too bad. It seems to be the case in our society to take little interest in past family. Our photographs are many things. They are a diary of our life, what we did and things we found important. The are a testament to our creative talents and interests. There are museums full of just these things. Imagone if say Mathew Brady’s photos of the Grand Canyon had just been deleted from Facebook after his death. I always hoped I could take good enough photos that they would stand the test of time. Not everyone feels this way, obviously.
And when I talk, tongue firmly in cheek, about young people with beards...what I am really doing is identifying a group. "Young people interested in film photography". And they're not really interested in being lectured.
As someone within that cohort, it's also got a lot (for those who are a even just a little above the baseline of interest) to do with not having time, money or effort to waste on repetitious half-assed non-solutions dreamt up by incompetent cheapskates who seem to demand that everyone must have 30,000 cheapo lenses of every imaginable focal length (or who goes on ad nauseam about how they've supposedly done something ultra-special technique-wise, but which is really just a load of verbiage obscuring something once commonplace within relatively arcane but important sectors of the industry) but heaven forfend that someone actually buy a Leica and a 35mm &/ or 50mm (or a Hasselblad etc, etc) lens because that'll get them from A to B much faster (and more cheaply in the long run) - and fit better with how they want to make work that has some meaning to them. The impact of Intrepid can't be underestimated too - though a lot are going straight to significantly more expensive LF kit too.
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?