NBC short film documenting rise in film use

[Sirius Glass]

Did you not understand the joke?

It has not been a joke for years.

 

[pentaxuser]

Did you not understand the joke?

Yes this was clear Irish whimsy to me which I appreciate. If humour has to be the equivalent of obvious physical circus slapstick to be appreciated then its time we banned it on Photrio.

If someone jumps in with a post which causes a reaction of "You cannot be serious " then usually it is because the poster was not serious

Here's a suggestion: Mods, set a rule that any attempt at other than obvious humour which does not have the word "joke" at the end of the post so there can be no misunderstanding, will immediately be sent to the soapbox

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

A post like that will get the Kodachrome stupids in a frenzy and we will have to put up with their poorly thought out demands for the impractical. The rest of us have put up with almost a decade of that crap and are fed up with it. It was never funny.

 

[foc]

A post like that will get the Kodachrome stupids in a frenzy and we will have to put up with their poorly thought out demands for the impractical. The rest of us have put up with almost a decade of that crap and are fed up with it. It was never funny.

Ok my attempt at humour may not have been successful, (I thought the emoji was a giveaway) but I think you need to take it easy and maybe chill a little before hitting the bold text button.
A little civility can go a long way.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have seen all I need to in connection with Kodachrome and its future to be able to just smile and gloss over the "serious" posts. Can't be that hard, can it?

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

Bad: They, with surgical precision, chose the most punchable, posing, smug and talentless YouTube “personalities” they possibly could have. And let them represent, whatever it is they are trying to convey as a movement.

Good: Henning Serger is in the comments, putting a few things right.

 

[NB23]

A shot that I do not particularly like, and which has too many flaws to my own standards of what a good shot should be (yes it’s all subjective), but while I am printing shots of my kids, this was shot was among the film and so I printed it on 3.5x5rc.
This kind of scene used to be common when I was a kid but it slowly got lost. Thanks to Nintendo, then Sega...

 

[Team ADOX]

The irony is that it's mostly people who are living in the past that are choosing film over digital. So choose your words wisely!

With all respect we have to disagree here. Saying that film users are living in the past is certainly a prejudice. That is at least our result from our experience and market research over all the years (we've already explained that to you recently, please have a look here at posting no. 246: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/nikon-f6-updates.176693/page-10 ), and via our distributor Fotoimpex we have a very close contact to the customer base.
People who are using film today are very well aware of digital imaging. And a majority of them is using digital, too. For most of them it isn't a fundamentalistic "either - or" but a relaxed "both" or "and". They simply make a very conscious / deliberate decision to use film, and for which purposes or projects they use and prefer film. For them using film is a part of current, modern life and and their choice of using the photographic medium which suits their needs best.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

With all respect we have to disagree here. Saying that film users are living in the past is certainly a prejudice. That is at least our result from our experience and market research over all the years (we've already explained that to you recently, please have a look here at posting no. 246: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/nikon-f6-updates.176693/page-10 ), and via our distributor Fotoimpex we have a very close contact to the customer base.
People who are using film today are very well aware of digital imaging. And a majority of them is using digital, too. For most of them it isn't a fundamentalistic "either - or" but a relaxed "both" or "and". They simply make a very conscious / deliberate decision to use film, and for which purposes or projects they use and prefer film. For them using film is a part of current, modern life and and their choice of using the photographic medium which suits their needs best.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

+1, not much else to add.

 

[Helge]

With all respect we have to disagree here. Saying that film users are living in the past is certainly a prejudice. That is at least our result from our experience and market research over all the years (we've already explained that to you recently, please have a look here at posting no. 246: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/nikon-f6-updates.176693/page-10 ), and via our distributor Fotoimpex we have a very close contact to the customer base.
People who are using film today are very well aware of digital imaging. And a majority of them is using digital, too. For most of them it isn't a fundamentalistic "either - or" but a relaxed "both" or "and". They simply make a very conscious / deliberate decision to use film, and for which purposes or projects they use and prefer film. For them using film is a part of current, modern life and and their choice of using the photographic medium which suits their needs best.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

Plus 2.
If anything film is the image capture medium of the future.
Digital and digitally distributed images is cheapening themselves out of existence.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The irony is that it's mostly people who are living in the past that are choosing film over digital. So choose your words wisely!

An opinion probably based on what he had for breakfast, not based on fact.

 

[Sirius Glass]

With all respect we have to disagree here. Saying that film users are living in the past is certainly a prejudice. That is at least our result from our experience and market research over all the years (we've already explained that to you recently, please have a look here at posting no. 246: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/nikon-f6-updates.176693/page-10 ), and via our distributor Fotoimpex we have a very close contact to the customer base.
People who are using film today are very well aware of digital imaging. And a majority of them is using digital, too. For most of them it isn't a fundamentalistic "either - or" but a relaxed "both" or "and". They simply make a very conscious / deliberate decision to use film, and for which purposes or projects they use and prefer film. For them using film is a part of current, modern life and and their choice of using the photographic medium which suits their needs best.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

+3 ADOX thank you for stepping up and setting the facts straight.

 

[BradS]

I think that it is best to keep your behind in the past.

 

[cerber0s]

People who are using film today are very well aware of digital imaging. And a majority of them is using digital, too. For most of them it isn't a fundamentalistic "either - or" but a relaxed "both" or "and". They simply make a very conscious / deliberate decision to use film, and for which purposes or projects they use and prefer film.

This sums me up.

 

[miha]

With all respect we have to disagree here. Saying that film users are living in the past is certainly a prejudice. That is at least our result from our experience and market research over all the years (we've already explained that to you recently, please have a look here at posting no. 246: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/nikon-f6-updates.176693/page-10 ), and via our distributor Fotoimpex we have a very close contact to the customer base.
People who are using film today are very well aware of digital imaging. And a majority of them is using digital, too. For most of them it isn't a fundamentalistic "either - or" but a relaxed "both" or "and". They simply make a very conscious / deliberate decision to use film, and for which purposes or projects they use and prefer film. For them using film is a part of current, modern life and and their choice of using the photographic medium which suits their needs best.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

Maybe, not necessary, leaving in the past has a different meaning for the two of us. My point was that film is used mostly by Anoraks (I've been criticized by @blockend for using this word already in another thread. In addition, we have a recent thread going on about using Super 8 to document family holidays by @perkeleellinen who has my greatest respect ...Living in the past? Perhaps. No prejudice on my part!

 

[cerber0s]

Plus 2.
If anything film is the image capture medium of the future.
Digital and digitally distributed images is cheapening themselves out of existence.

While I think film will be here in the future I don't think it's the photographic medium of the future. Digital is just cheaper and more accessible.

Photography is an art form, even when used for documentary purposes, except maby forensics. While I apreciate that photographers have favourite gear and favourite methods, none of that matters to the viewer. Most people don't stand in a gallery saying "I love that photo, I wonder if it was a digital camera or an analog one" or "I wonder what brush Picasso used for that painting". If you hear a great guitar solo you don't go "I wonder if that is a digital amp or a tube amp and does it have EL34's or 6L6's".

My point is that it shouldn't- and in most cases don't matter to the audience with what gear the photo was captured as long as they enjoy the photo itself.

 

[BradS]

Maybe, not necessary, leaving in the past has a different meaning for the two of us. My point was that film is used mostly by Anoraks (I've been criticized by @blockend for using this word already in another thread. In addition, we have a recent thread going on about using Super 8 to document family holidays by @perkeleellinen who has my greatest respect ...Living in the past? Perhaps. No prejudice on my part!

Certainly, there are anoraks among film users but surely we're not all like that!
I use film because its cheaper than digital image making, it is a little less ephemeral and most importantly, I like the results. If I want plasticy perfection and I'm OK with completely ephemeral, then I'll make a digital image. This doesn't really have anything to do with living in the past or being obsessive (I loath obsessive). In fact, if anything, it is anti-obsessive.

As I have said before, the photography vs digital image making debate is over. It is a moot point. They are different and no comparison can be meaningful in anyway. Its like comparing water color on paper to to oil on canvas - neither is better or worse. They are different. Comparison is a pointless waste of time.

 

[Helge]

Maybe, not necessary, leaving in the past has a different meaning for the two of us. My point was that film is used mostly by Anoraks (I've been criticized by @blockend for using this word already in another thread. In addition, we have a recent thread going on about using Super 8 to document family holidays by @perkeleellinen who has my greatest respect ...Living in the past? Perhaps. No prejudice on my part!

I think you should brush up on your English expressions, and slang terms.
"Living in the past" and "anorak" are overwhelmingly seen in derisive talk.
That's what counts.

I might as well call you a "crypto edge-lord", and pretend that in my mind that meant something else, and "that is what matters", when addressing you as that.

 

[miha]

Certainly, there are anoraks among film users but surely we're not all like that!
I use film because its cheaper than digital image making, it is a little less ephemeral and most importantly, I like the results. If I want plasticy perfection and I'm OK with completely ephemeral, then I'll make a digital image. This doesn't really have anything to do with living in the past or being obsessive (I loath obsessive). In fact, if anything, it is anti-obsessive.

As I have said before, the photography vs digital image making debate is over. It is a moot point. They are different and no comparison can be meaningful in anyway. Its like comparing water color on paper to to oil on canvas - neither is better or worse. They are different. Comparison is a pointless waste of time.

Interesting and legit view which I don't share.

 

[miha]

I think you should brush up on your English expressions, and slang terms.

Well, I'm doing my best, Helge.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Maybe, not necessary, leaving in the past has a different meaning for the two of us. My point was that film is used mostly by Anoraks (I've been criticized by @blockend for using this word already in another thread. In addition, we have a recent thread going on about using Super 8 to document family holidays by @perkeleellinen who has my greatest respect ...Living in the past? Perhaps. No prejudice on my part!

Which volume of the Thesaurus did you swallow? Maybe all the volumes.

 

[Helge]

As I have said before, the photography vs digital image making debate is over. It is a moot point. They are different and no comparison can be meaningful in anyway. Its like comparing water color on paper to to oil on canvas - neither is better or worse. They are different. Comparison is a pointless waste of time.

When you feel the need to talk like that, it’s most often because the complete opposite is the case.

When “it’s not about sex”, it’s most definitely almost always one hundred percent about S E X.

When it’s “not about the money”, it IS always about the money.

When there is “nothing further to discuss”, the discussion hasn’t even started yet.

We need to have a global discussion in the coming decades about photography as such and its worth.
In much the same way painting was challenged by photography in the nineteenth century.
And that discussion is not going to be in words at all.

I have a strong feeling film is going to have a big part in that, in ways we really can’t thoroughly foresee now.

In the McLuhan sense photography as a medium has reversed itself, and has become it’s own opposite. Same as what happened to a lot of other media.

 

[pentaxuser]

Which volume of the Thesaurus did you swallow? Maybe all the versions. Maybe you should learn to use a thesaurus before you stick random words around, like you do in your fraternity house.

Fraternity House? Isn't that connected with U.S. colleges? As far as I know miha lives where they have produced some great cyclists recently and I am not referring to Texas and it's a place where strangely enough English is not the native language. I think there was not so much a fraternity house but more of a fraternity that housed Tito's partisans

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

While I think film will be here in the future I don't think it's the photographic medium of the future. Digital is just cheaper and more accessible.

Photography is an art form, even when used for documentary purposes, except maby forensics. While I apreciate that photographers have favourite gear and favourite methods, none of that matters to the viewer. Most people don't stand in a gallery saying "I love that photo, I wonder if it was a digital camera or an analog one" or "I wonder what brush Picasso used for that painting". If you hear a great guitar solo you don't go "I wonder if that is a digital amp or a tube amp and does it have EL34's or 6L6's".

My point is that it shouldn't- and in most cases don't matter to the audience with what gear the photo was captured as long as they enjoy the photo itself.

That’s hackneyed rethoric, often perpetuated, folk wisdom. Which is of course a logical, philosophical and aesthetic (etc.) fallacy.

In the same way the artist as a person matters, the tools and techniques they use matters.
And the time and milieu they exist and function in matters.

You could argue, and it has been, that art is really only the sum of those deemed to be external, extraneous parts.
The actual “content” plays a very small role, if it really exists as a separate thing in itself at all.

 

[cerber0s]

That’s hackneyed rethoric, often perpetuated, folk wisdom. Which is of course a logical, philosophical and aesthetic (etc.) fallacy.

In the same way the artist as a person matters, the tools and techniques they use matters.
And the time and milieu they exist and function in matters.

You could argue, and it has been, that art is really only the sum of those deemed to be external, extraneous parts.
The actual “content” plays a very small role, if it really exists as a separate thing in itself at all.

Let's just agree to disagree here