Are they any good? The last time I bought a brick of Maxell UR tapes at a pharmacy the recordings sounded terrible, but I have a supply of older TDK D tapes which are great.
I think you miss my point. In the days when it was common for people to take photographs with cameras rather than phones, people took cameras of all descriptions to the beach. And nobody objected. Because it was understood that people wanted to take snapshots. I do not indiscriminately photograph other people's children or people in bathing suits. And that's the point. I've been accused of such in the 2010s before I even lifted the camera to my eye...on multiple occasions. Because literally nobody else had a camera, even though scores of people were snapping wide angle photos on their phones and no doubt including everyone else's children and people in bathing suits. Now, cameras are a more common sight and it's actually possible to take one to the beach again without being accused of all sorts of things.
The chap in the pub didn't seem to take any photos there, but the pub was quite dimly lit. As I recall he had a zoom of some description but probably the usual 35-70mm.
PT Panggung of Indonesia made the Panarec brand as well as OEMing tape for other better known names, including Maxell after Maxell stopped making their own.
I am not worried about saving water. Living in the US Southwest I know how to do that. I am much more concerned about chemicals leaching out of landfills and contaminating the land and water.
A fair amount of water goes into the production of film and paper, as well as what might be considered questionable chemicals. It is the kind of industry that is easy to target by environmental groups as it is a niche market that no-one cares too much about, very few would miss it.
And polluting the bay even more.But even the environmentalist have already admitted that discarded electronic cameras is a much bigger problem. The anti film train sailed out of the harbor and sank on the first curve after the airport.
I use a Ford Explorer and a Jeep Grand Cherokee as my drivers. Both have steel drive shafts, front and rear. I do not think that Hickory or even Old Hickory would do the job.
The best and strongest correlation is in a situation when you can have a segment begin to criticize and stealth envy-hate the consumers and/or fans of a given product or idea for being elitist and snobs, all the while they deep down wish to be part of the group themselves.
But they imagine the bar of entry to be too high.
...Film haters among old geezer DSLR crowd, especially at...The Online Photographer...
Are they any good? The last time I bought a brick of Maxell UR tapes at a pharmacy the recordings sounded terrible, but I have a supply of older TDK D tapes which are great.
2. Film haters among old geezer DSLR crowd, especially at the D site, The Online Photographer, and others. This is no longer 2005, film is no longer dead, why do these guys care any more? Jealous perhaps of the energetic young photographers running with a technology that the geezers thought was their discarded domain?
Possibly getting a little technical but the last lot of Maxell UR available outside of Japan was made by PT Panggung, had been since about 2010. It's decent but you cannot record above 0dB as that's it's saturation point and you do need fine bias adjust. It needs a good deal of negative bias to get the best out of it. So put it in a machine without fine bias adjust and it will sound mediocre for sure. The new stuff is now on the Japanese market as Maxell UR but hasn't been released outside Japan. It's decent again, but not the UR of 1990.
2. Film haters among old geezer DSLR crowd, especially at the D site, The Online Photographer, and others. This is no longer 2005, film is no longer dead, why do these guys care any more? Jealous perhaps of the energetic young photographers running with a technology that the geezers thought was their discarded domain?
I think you nailed it @Kodachromeguy . I might add, not a problem exclusively with the D site though. Strangely enough, even film photography forums appear to be popular with older gents whose only contribution is to let everyone know how dead film is, how absurd it is that anyone would want to shoot film in this day and age, how superior digital photography is, and how crazy it is that anyone might want to shoot film and not print, but (oh the horror!) scan. The last one is a personal favourite.
Is it FOMO perhaps? Jealousy you suggest, and I tend to agree. I think it's perhaps due to the feeling of having been in a relatively arcane and exclusive club decades ago, and then all of a sudden loads of younger people are flooding in, having fun -say- fixing old folders or looking at the world via a waist-level finder, doing actually some great stuff by some standards, and pushing the boundaries in a way that is considered heretic/not acceptable by some old standards. It follows that these senior people, instead of providing guidance, suggestions, sharing their experiences and mentoring, are retreating with like-minded peers to bark at this strange mix of novel and old, which I personally find sad. Because it just creates a rift and pushes young people to e.g. Instagram, where they'll perhaps learn by trial and error, or will just 'overexpose Portra 400 2 stops' because some other instagrammer said it'd improve 'the tones'.
Mind you @Kodachromeguy - you are right on your D site DSLR geezer crowd observation. As someone who scans and doesn't print their negatives, I increasingly see evidence of D-site resolution chart zealots who jump back onto the film ship only to project their sensor/resolution neuroses into the relatively virgin hybrid film photography space. This is a new trend: in any discussion on film scanning you will find the boomer who says you really, really need a $5000 DSLR camera and $3000 worth of accompanying gitzmos to truely and uniquely extract all that grain goodness from your Kodak Gold negatives taken with a 60$ Olympus 35RC riddled with lens fungus.
@Helge - Copenhagen is not special in this regard. In Rome, London, Edinburgh and Berlin over the past 2-3 years I've not seen a DSLR/mirrorless in the hands of 20-40s in the street for ages. It's phones or an AE-1, an X700 or an OM1n. Last time I happened to be in Berlin and dropped by FotoImpex to get some Adox Rodinal the queue was about 100m long. Film photography is here to stay
Why argue against grain? Grain is as much to photography as brush strokes or paper/canvas texture to painting and drawing. Often dramatic impact is heightened by a high level of grain, while others benefit from fine grain. If one prefers the often plasticky look of a lot of digital...go for it!
I think the main thing driving various iterations of "geezer rage" against film, is that they become painfully aware that they where never very good photographers in the first place.
They have used, having the best or at least good gear, as a proxy for doing "good work".
When they see a plethora of mediocre to bad, but perfectly fine technical work done by new folks with digital cameras and even phones on various services and sites, they can always brush it off as "pop", "not really art" or "not what I'm doing" etc.
On the other hand, people doing good work, and better than they ever did, with gear that formed their identity and bedrock of their hobby, that they have given up like old beloved but childish toys, that goes too visceral and to their heart in quite a different way.
So much screwing around to get the best possible digital image from your decidedly undigital film seems a bit silly to me. I can see why some people do it, though - especially if they want to make large prints. But ultimately, I'm in the camp that, if I wasn't using an enlarger to print, I wouldn't use film. Given a few years, there is nothing you can get from film that you won't be able to get with a quick filter in software on a purely digital image. To think otherwise is naive.
Anyway, when you have a photo in your hand, the last thing you're looking at is "grain" - or the photo is a failure. A photo should replace your vision, not obscure it.
So much screwing around to get the best possible digital image from your decidedly undigital film seems a bit silly to me.
Why do you care that they care?2. Film haters among old geezer DSLR crowd, especially at the D site, The Online Photographer, and others. This is no longer 2005, film is no longer dead, why do these guys care any more? Jealous perhaps of the energetic young photographers running with a technology that the geezers thought was their discarded domain?
Second, I saw a young guy (20s or so) with a K1000 at the Painted Desert visitor center. That's the 3rd film user I've spotted in public in the last few months.
I've seen the thing with old geezers who went for new technology getting jealous of those who stuck it out with older tech (or tried and retained both). I have it in the world of vinyl records where I never dumped any of my vinyl nor turntables....so today I am in the enviable position of having my record collection, having snapped up bargains in the early 90s when everyone was offloading what are now valuable records to "upgrade" to CD....and having kept my and my dad's previous turntables. Thus I have a lovely Systemdek at home, a moderate Sansui in my office and spare copies of many a lovely record acquired for peanuts. And the people who ditched records only to try and return a couple of decades later are sometimes jealous, even angry.
I think the main thing driving various iterations of "geezer rage" against film, is that they become painfully aware that they where never very good photographers in the first place.
They have used, having the best or at least good gear, as a proxy for doing "good work".
When they see a plethora of mediocre to bad, but perfectly fine technical work done by new folks with digital cameras and even phones on various services and sites, they can always brush it off as "pop", "not really art" or "not what I'm doing" etc.
On the other hand, people doing good work, and better than they ever did, with gear that formed their identity and bedrock of their hobby, that they have given up like old beloved but childish toys, that goes too visceral and to their heart in quite a different way.
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?