You forgot the Hasselblad haters, the Kodak haters, the Fuji haters, and the Ilford haters.
Last edited:
I see two examples of this:
1. Leica haters. Look at the infamous D review site and even here sometimes for the hate talk relating to anything Leica. "I don't own a Leica but xxxxxx." "I'm not interested in Leica but xxxxx."
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.
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 can well see film being similar. Oh...another anecdote, I was taking a stroll around Wrest Park a few weeks ago with a Lubitel TLR while my partner had a Voigtlander Brilliant. A chap stopped us for a long talk about TLRs and about how he gave his to a museum 20 years ago and now regrets it because he can't afford to buy another Rolleiflex. He wanted to know how good the Lubitels are as he wanted to get back into it.
About ten years ago I was off roading in Moab and taking photographs with my Hasselblad and a younger old fart came up to me and told me that his son's new camera could beat the pants off my camera. I looked at him and said "You must be so proud to yourself that your son can spend so much money to get so little." He just stormed off. He wanted to rain on my parade and I just peed on him. Oh well.
That and underwater photography.
nvert in the true sense of the word never having had a camera of her own before but hopefully she has caught the bug. She doesn't know it yet but I have a Nikon F601 and a cheap Sigma 28/70 lens which she can have the next time she comes to visit.
Are you a psychiatrist or a psychologist? I am just wondering how you came up with this explanation.
About ten years ago I was off roading in Moab and taking photographs with my Hasselblad and a younger old fart came up to me and told me that his son's new camera could beat the pants off my camera. I looked at him and said "You must be so proud to yourself that your son can spend so much money to get so little." He just stormed off. He wanted to rain on my parade and I just peed on him. Oh well.
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.
Or blurry. Or both, as in this famous photograph by Robert Frank. Of course many early critics of The Americans thought the photographs were failures in technical terms, but that clearly missed the pointI think there are a lot of great photographs I have seen that are are grainy.
Or blurry. Or both, as in this famous photograph by Robert Frank. Of course many early critics of The Americans thought the photographs were failures in technical terms, but that clearly missed the point
There is not much screwing around once you have a good setup for camera scanning.
I'm in another camp all-together. I can get much better digital files (with much less hassle and much less 'screwing around') from traditional film equipment than from modern digital cameras
The photo for me is in the negative, not in a print.
I think there are a lot of great photographs I have seen that are are grainy.
I am into wire recordings.
CDs were around for almost ten years before I bought my first one. Talk about being a basic technology dinosaur and I am an electrical engineer. Go figure!
I notice a lot of stuff simultaneously. I am sure you do too.And was the grain the first or last thing to note about the photos, if they were truly great?
Sure. I evaluate photographs on both aesthetic and technical levels.When you look at a print, you see where there was no grain.
Whilst on eBay, I put in "Nikon camera" in the "cameras and photography" category and came up w/ over 120,000 hits. When I changed the category to "film photography", I got 10,000. Hmmmm.
Many years in market research tells me that this means something.
If I had the space, I'd consider it just for the fun of it. I do have a "Recordon" magnetic audio disc dictation recorder from 1953. And a Grundig Stenorette which was a weird reel to reel format dictation machine from the 50s. Just as curios rather than for any practical use. The best dictation device yet devised was the microcassette.
I think it took me 7 years, because by 1988/89 it was becoming difficult to get new releases on vinyl. I was having a whale of a time exploring the music of the 60s and 70s but I did want to buy some contemporary music. But my flirtation with the CD lasted two years. Having spent a small fortune of my parents money on a top line CD player, I found that my modest turntable sounded better. In every occasion where I had the same material on CD and LP, I ended up giving the CD away.
But with film, it's somewhat different for me. I don't necessarily feel that film is objectively better, other than in dynamic range. For colour images especially, digital photography has some advantages. But I find I enjoy film more. I like the process of taking photos, developing the film, and not spending hours on the computer editing them.
Off roading in Moab, eh? How much did the resulting absolutely necessary Hass CLA cost?
So basically the exact same thing except the paper.It's called an enlarger. You blow light through the negative and put the positive on paper. That's the end.
That is certainly proof that film has gone mainstream.
I showed her a cassette of unexposed film and explained as simply as I could and when the roll in use needed rewinding I showed her what I had to do to change it over. Later that evening she helped me to develop the film and it wasn't long before she wanted to do the same with a camera of her own. There wasn't enough time to print anything but that is lined up for the next visit.
how crazy it is that anyone might want to shoot film and not print, but rather (oh the horror!) scan. The last one is a personal favourite.
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?