Selling a film camera on Craigslist...

[Rick A]

Hmm... I just reread post #1, sure smacks of that, but then IJMHO.

 

[jcc]

I don't get your point.
If you both were joking why did you put this in this ethics forum and why did you ask whether your reply was mean ??

The buyer wasn't joking, and neither was my reply. If someone asked me how often they should replace the roll of film, I'd say the exact same thing as I did--every 36 shots (unless you're shooting 24 exposures).

And I did not ask if my reply was mean, I asked why the commenter thought it was mean.

I placed it here because I was more wondering about the philosophical nature of today's society. Are we as a society--as a whole, not as a niche of film shooters--that far removed from what was the dominant way of making images not too long ago? But now this thread has got me wondering, why this thread has gotten some negative feedback. Can anyone point to a part where I called the Buyer stupid/ignorant, or where I said that "I am so much better"?

 

[jcc]

Hmm... I just reread post #1, sure smacks of that, but then IJMHO.

Let me ask then, how often should I replace a roll of film in a camera?

 

[AgX]

Please don't assume (1) that the buyer was uneducated, (2) that they did not know how film cameras work, and (3) that I missed an opportunity to educate someone about film. In this case, all three assumptions are wrong.

The buyer wasn't joking, and neither was my reply. If someone asked me how often they should replace the roll of film, I'd say the exact same thing as I did--every 36 shots (unless you're shooting 24 exposures)?

I still do not understand.

 

[jcc]

I still do not understand.

The buyer was in his early to mid-50's, and has used film cameras before.

 

[StoneNYC]

Cake hole, that's an interesting thing to call someone, I'm glad that the original poster did not tell the potential buyer to shut his cake hole, because that would actually have been mean...

Something about being taught proper polite behaviors etc. etc., obviously didn't sink in very well

 

[AgX]

To me this thread is a bad joke.

 

[Rick A]

Let me ask then, how often should I replace a roll of film in a camera?

If you knew nothing about film cameras, I would start of asking some questions of my own, then show you a couple of rolls and tell you, when you get to the end of the roll, or you decide to change film for whatever reason, and give a tutorial. I definitely wouldn't give a pert smart ass retort. Making people feel stupid is no way to endear them to a cause, whether it be film cameras or anything else we are trying to sell/promote. So my response to your previous question about sounding mean, yes you were.

 

[jcc]

To me this thread is a bad joke.

It's taken turns a path of its own.

 

[jcc]

If you knew nothing about film cameras, I would start of asking some questions of my own, then show you a couple of rolls and tell you, when you get to the end of the roll, or you decide to change film for whatever reason, and give a tutorial. I definitely wouldn't give a pert smart ass retort. Making people feel stupid is no way to endear them to a cause, whether it be film cameras or anything else we are trying to sell/promote. So my response to your previous question about sounding mean, yes you were.

This again assumes the person asking doesn't know anything about film cameras. But more importantly, the question was, "how often should I replace the roll?", not "how should I replace the roll?".

 

[tkamiya]

Without passing any judgement to OP, the prospective buyer, or other participants in this thread:

I think this is so typical of discussions on Internet forums. Enthusiasts in niche field encounters public unfamiliar with what we consider general knowledge. All sorts of emotions ensues and discussion goes all over the place. Condemnations, praise, and need for education gets brought out.

Something became clear to me a while back. Film and film based photography isn't something many people are interested in. It's not a knowledge they seek. General public wants "photos" and whatever method that gives them what they want is what they are interested in. Today, it's smart phones. To them, quality is megapixels.

Public in general don't know, don't care, and don't want to know.

 

[AgX]

No one yet got interested when I'm around with any of my 35mm still cameras.

But with my Super-8 cameras the situation is different. And when refering to film at least kids got no idea what film means. But with Super-8 I'm in the beneficent situation to be able to take out the cassette anytime (well, the counter sets back...) and show film and film gate.

 

[Tom1956]

Stone was saying he did NOT agree with the deniers. But on another note, it wouldn't be smart to express doubt to Buzz Aldrin. He might be nearly 90 now, but he'd still give you a fat lip.

 

[Toffle]

I think my point was that the OP's response shows effete snobbery, and a total lack of understanding that he could have made a difference in a positive manner, rather than the route he took. We should all remember, this is a public forum, and our posts are read by folks attempting to learn by asking those of us with experience. What do you think their reaction to this will be? I think they will be extremely hesitant to ask for fear of ridicule. Of course, this is just my opinion.
I was taught that the only stupid question was the one not asked, I also believe there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

I would also point out that it is very educational (for us) to observe the "spy" function which scrolls through the most recent APUG posts. Amidst the childish bickering posts and ad hominem attacks, there are regular New User Registration posts... several every day. I'd feel sorry for any new user if this thread was the first thing they saw on their first day on APUG. My feeling is that as ambassadors for analog photography, we have a higher responsibility than winning points in a forum dispute.

 

[Roger Cole]

Please don't assume (1) that the buyer was uneducated, (2) that they did not know how film cameras work, and (3) that I missed an opportunity to educate someone about film. In this case, all three assumptions are wrong.

Huh?

It seems pretty clear to me that the buyer did not know how film cameras work.

I mean it MIGHT have been a chance to educate someone, but somehow I doubt it. Anyone who didn't already know what a roll of film was is not likely to be a good candidate for buying a 35mm camera off Craig's List. If they want to check out film there are other approaches to take.

 

[Roger Cole]

The buyer was in his early to mid-50's, and has used film cameras before.

So he just didn't connect "rolls" with "rolls of film?"

I've had brain farts like that where I just misunderstood the very very obvious because it was phrased slightly differently than I would have done. But in that case I'd expect him to be amused by the reply and say something like, "D'oh! Of course, sorry, thought you meant something else."

 

[MattKing]

As a seller, you only need to promote the fact that your camera cleans the "sensor" after every shot!

 

[Roger Cole]

Without passing any judgement to OP, the prospective buyer, or other participants in this thread:

I think this is so typical of discussions on Internet forums. Enthusiasts in niche field encounters public unfamiliar with what we consider general knowledge. All sorts of emotions ensues and discussion goes all over the place. Condemnations, praise, and need for education gets brought out.

Something became clear to me a while back. Film and film based photography isn't something many people are interested in. It's not a knowledge they seek. General public wants "photos" and whatever method that gives them what they want is what they are interested in. Today, it's smart phones. To them, quality is megapixels.

Public in general don't know, don't care, and don't want to know.

This is generally true and a good point, but I'm not sure it's relevant to this thread.

We have this all the time on pilot forums. In particular we all hoot with derision at accident reports in mass media and the comical comments, among them "no flight plan was filed" (flight plans are neither required nor commonly filed for visual flight rules flights, nor would they make any difference at all in whether an accident occurs even when they are - they MIGHT, very rarely, improve search and rescue) and comments about "the engine stalled" because an aerodynamic stall has absolutely nothing to do with the engine. Airplane engines can and do fail, but we don't call that a "stall" like drivers do, because "stall" means something totally different in an aeronautical context. To relate to the current issue though, if a person is interested in buying a film camera one is right to expect them to have some knowledge of film and film cameras.

Maybe this was the case as I asked above and the guy just misunderstood the statement.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone was saying he did NOT agree with the deniers. But on another note, it wouldn't be smart to express doubt to Buzz Aldrin. He might be nearly 90 now, but he'd still give you a fat lip.

Thanks, yes I believe we did land on the moon for real

 

[jcc]

So he just didn't connect "rolls" with "rolls of film?"

I've had brain farts like that where I just misunderstood the very very obvious because it was phrased slightly differently than I would have done. But in that case I'd expect him to be amused by the reply and say something like, "D'oh! Of course, sorry, thought you meant something else."

Probably. I did not pursue why he asked the question. I just simply answered the question, and he turned the conversation to its price.

 

[tkamiya]

This is generally true and a good point, but I'm not sure it's relevant to this thread.

Perhaps. My point is, we are making a HUGE deal out of really nothing - bringing out factors that were likely never part of the original conversation. typical of internet forum discussions.

Yes, I know what stall is.... that's tall chair you sit, right? (yes, I really do know.... loss of lift - typically caused by too slow of a speed or too acute of angle of attack relative to the air speed) I wish I pursued my private license dream....

 

[Tom1956]

Stone--you young whippersnappers might have your youth still, but I wouldn't trade my blessing of being a 12 1/2 year old boy in the summer of '69. I've posted this link before, I'm sure. But I still go back and watch the whole 10 min video of it every year or so. Give it a go, for the whole 10 mins,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGNryrsT7OI

 

[BrianShaw]

...

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

 

[BrianShaw]

Cake hole, that's an interesting thing to call someone, I'm glad that the original poster did not tell the potential buyer to shut his cake hole, because that would actually have been mean...

Something about being taught proper polite behaviors etc. etc., obviously didn't sink in very well

Is it a cake hole or a pie hole? I've always been confused about that, yet I know I have a distinct preference.

 

[ignatiu5]

So he just didn't connect "rolls" with "rolls of film?"

I've had brain farts like that where I just misunderstood the very very obvious because it was phrased slightly differently than I would have done. But in that case I'd expect him to be amused by the reply and say something like, "D'oh! Of course, sorry, thought you meant something else."

I’ve been thinking about this. I wonder if it’s simply a terminology issue. Suspend for a moment our knowledge that 35mm film comes in “rolls”. What if the buyer simply understands a different word for a unit of film, for example a cartridge or cassette?

If you think film comes in “cartridges” (and if your last camera was an APS, that would be a common term), and the seller tells you that they’ve put several “rolls” through the camera and everything is working fine, I could potentially see how someone might think that rolls might be things (rollers, gears, part of the transport mechanism, something that turns?) that need to be replaced on occasion in order for the camera to work properly.