What a nice forum after...

[gareth harper]

"Yeah,I find that funny too......never misses an opportunity to troll and then "but, but, I shoot film too".... !

Here come the usual snide remarks. I thought you had me on Ignore Jorge.

So there you go Frank, I think I've made my point. APUG is a great forum for those interested in film, but don't think it's free of the rougth and tumble. If you want info on B&W processes, you'll find that the B&W photonet forums are well informed and generally free of anti-digital bull and snide remarks.

However if you want even more in depth info and detail on film based topics APUG cannot be beaten, however if you like the quiet life on no account mention the word 'digital' or suggest that it has any use whatsoever.

 

[Jorge]

Actually Frank, if you ignore the digidiots that sign on this forum to troll and start flame wars because they cannot stand it that there is a forum that does not allow digital talk, this is a very nice site. The guy above is a very good example of what I mean..

 

[Flotsam]

But generally when 'digital' is mentioned, what you get here in response is pure anti-digital bull.

Are you sure you don't mean, when the topic of opening APUG to digital discussions and images is mentioned ? People get pretty defensive about that and I admit that I agree with them. Like many here, I use digital whenever it is the best tool for the job. I don't dislike it. I just don't make a topic of it on site that is devoted to analog photography.

Oh somebody mentioned posting pictures. Something about not being allowed to post digital pictures here. I find that very funny.

This is brought up every week or two here.
Yes, it has actually occurrred to the folks who post in the the galleries here that they are posting digital images. The site's FAQ should clear up any confusion, although it never seems to.

 

[bobfowler]

Welcome aboard Frank! For the most part, this is the most civilized on-line forum I've found. Sure we have our pissing contests, and some people do get wet, but all in all it's a great group of folks here.

BTW - The pissing contests here are nothing like the knife fights on photo.net!

 

[Eric Rose]

ahhh, zzziiiippppp, that feels better.

 

[removed account4]

hi frank

its nice to see you here

this place is really nice -

 

[Frank Petronio]

OK, while I own three digicams, two scanners, and three printers (and teach a digi workshop) I'll keep my trap shut about that aspect...

Can we talk politics as it relates to photography? I saw a political forum but it looks like they port us scalliwags off to another forum with non-photographers.

What I did like about PN was the Europeans and Asians (and Oceanians, Sean, thank you) weighing in. They were mostly wrong about stuff mind you, but it is nice to hear it from the Frog's mouth so to speak...

 

[Aggie]

OK, while I own three digicams, two scanners, and three printers (and teach a digi workshop) I'll keep my trap shut about that aspect...

Can we talk politics as it relates to photography? I saw a political forum but it looks like they port us scalliwags off to another forum with non-photographers.

What I did like about PN was the Europeans and Asians (and Oceanians, Sean, thank you) weighing in. They were mostly wrong about stuff mind you, but it is nice to hear it from the Frog's mouth so to speak...

What happened here was not pretty when politics reared its head. Yes it is nice to talk about such things, but there is always those who disagree to the point they become a bit degrading. To keep the frustration (not being able to see body language, and if some one is smirking when they post a comment) it was just deemed that politics and general religous discussions unless impacting photography directly were to be talked about on a political website. It just keeps the denizens here from becoming something they normally are not.

 

[Bob F.]

Hmmm... I keep hearing about these anti-digital rants, but in 6 months of reading this forum, I can't actually remember reading one. Odd that...

I do recall a number of people getting fed up to the back teeth when someone insists on posting digitally captured images or discussing digital imaging techniques on a forum dedicated to traditional techniques and methods, but I can't actually remember anyone engaging in an actual anti-digital rant. Perhaps one of the people complaining of such rants can point me to one?

Cheers, Bob.

 

[George Papantoniou]

I think that Digital Imaging and Photography are two very different Media (lots of people on this Forum will agree with me I guess). It's just like what happened in the 1850's with Engraving and Photography. In the beginning, the new technique was considered equivalent to the old one and people thought that the old would be "replaced" by the new. But after a while (50 years, that is), they understood that Engraving will remain present as an artistic medium and Photography will just replace it in the "commercial" part of the job. I guess that Digital Imaging will be completely separated from Film Photography and work its way to the apllied image making market while Photography will be used by artists and amateurs.

That being said, it is understandable that if this Forum is dedicated to Photography, it's logical that the members won't accept talk about Digital Imaging, Painting, Sculpture etc. Since the "displacement" of Photography by DI is still on its way, this causes losses to the commercial part of it (companies close down, products are discontinued) and creates a negative attitude towards Digital imaging (because we hold it responsible for the losses). This explains why sometimes Photography lovers might be hostile to people who seem to be Digital fans.

I am a proffesional photographer and use a scanner and computer when I need to, but I won't talk about it on this forum. I appreciate the fact that the other members do the same...

As for political talk, I would rather see it on a specialized APUG sub-Forum. This way, I'll read it only if I'm in the right mood...

 

[gareth harper]

"I think that Digital Imaging and Photography are two very different Media "

I disagree (suprise surprise!).
I'd say there is film photography and digital photography, plus the film/digital, digital/film cross overs.
I do not understnd why anybody wants to try and say that digital cannot be photography.

"That being said, it is understandable that if this Forum is dedicated to Photography"

It's dedicated to film photography. If it was simply dedicated to photography it would be wide open to all digital subjects, and indeed would just trun into another digital photo site with a small film section, that would not be a good idea.
However as I've pointed out before, and I'm not going to rant about it again, our future now to some extent depends on digital. Telling young snappers (who are now growing up with digital) who express an interest in film that they are now about to take their first photograph will not impress, or help the future of film.

Flotsam,

"This is brought up every week or two here.
Yes, it has actually occurrred to the folks who post in the the galleries here that they are posting digital images. The site's FAQ should clear up any confusion, although it never seems to."

Sorry Flotsam but I've got a bad habit, just like I never read car or motorcycle manuals, I never read the FAQ, rules etc.. on web sites. I strangely however always read camera manuals.
I probably should read the FAQ relating to posting images, but I might start giggling again, and worse could start a controversial thread on it that could have Jorge blowing fuses once more.

"when the topic of opening APUG to digital discussions and images is mentioned ?"

No. I'm happy with digital being kept in the lounge area. Oh shit I've just noticed this is the Rangefinder forum, and I think it was myself this time (I think for the first time) that mentioned the digital word first. I apologise, though in my defense I would say that this thread belongs in the lounge, but then that's what I should have posted.

Sorry.

 

[Tom Duffy]

Damn! I missed the thread over on PN...

A Colt Python - overly heavy but precise and reliable...

 

[Flotsam]

I probably should read the FAQ relating to posting images, but I might start giggling again,

If you are that easily amused, you should definitely stay away from the car and motorcycle manuals. They're a laugh riot compared to the FAQ.

 

[jd callow]

A pity I didn't find it last year. So, do people have fun here?

Yes it is a pity. For the most part people do have fun. I, personally, have made some friends and learned a ton. It is often a great place to go when you are forced to sit in front of a monitor.

 

[mark]

Ok Sean, change the site! It irks Gareth and lord knows we should all bend to accomodate him and disregard the purpose you set this site for to begin with.

Let it go Gareth, the horse is dog food by now.

 

[gareth harper]

"Ok Sean, change the site! It irks Gareth and lord knows we should all bend to accomodate him and disregard the purpose you set this site for to begin with."

Excuse me? Change the site? When did I request that, and why would I.

Mark, try reading what I have written, not what you think I have written.

"Let it go Gareth, the horse is dog food by now."

It's the first time I've brought it up. Sorry.

Flotsam,

"If you are that easily amused, you should definitely stay away from the car and motorcycle manuals."

Yup that's probably why I avoid em.

 

[gareth harper]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by gareth harper

"Let it go Gareth, the horse is dog food by now."

It's the first time I've brought it up. Sorry.





Gareth do you read your own posts? I checked many are about digital that only the dim would think are anything less than thinly veiled trolls."


Not only do I read em, well I write em!
If I have brought up digital (when it was not being discussed) anywhere else do let me know. Show me.

 

[Ole]

This horse is not only dead, but it's bones and hooves have been boiled down to make gelatin for black-and-white film. Please.

 

[Andy K]

...Dead Link Removed

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I think that Digital Imaging and Photography are two very different Media (lots of people on this Forum will agree with me I guess). It's just like what happened in the 1850's with Engraving and Photography. In the beginning, the new technique was considered equivalent to the old one and people thought that the old would be "replaced" by the new. But after a while (50 years, that is), ...

I wonder who thought engraving and photography were 'equivalent'? To be sure, photography accomplished the same goal as engraving in the context of newspaper reporting. That is, the illustration of events described in new stories.

Where the analogy strays from the present situation is the claim of digital technology to be 'just like photography' or 'just as good as' film. It insists on emulating asa numbers rather than coming up with its own terminology. Some of these silly cameras even have little speakers to 'simulate' the sound of mirror flop and shutter activation.

Whereas photography never claimed to be a better type of engraving, digital imaging (if it were a sentient being) doesn't have the self-confidence to stay off of the coat tails of 150 years of photographic history. In all fairness, photography did try to ride on the coat tails of painting for a while in the early 20th century. There was 'pictoral' photography and 'straight' photography. thank god straight photography won the day. the soft focus, low contrast, fuzzy pictoral photography was horrid.

I have nothing against DI, I'd just rather the industry were bold enough to proclaim the technology as 'all new and different from what has been done before'. Let it stand on its own two legs. If it did that then maybe I would be less often subjected to the condescending comments of those who've 'gone digital'.

And that's another thing... why is it that when I go to a camera store to buy chemicals or MF film, the fools behind the counter insist on launching into another anti-film scree. They try to convince me to 'go digital' and are astounded when I don't see their point of view.

Let us think about this for a moment. DI has been around for several years now right? As an avid amateur photographer, I've been aware of it for a long time and know the advantages/disadvantages of it by now. If I'm still shooting film, odds are that I've already made a decision and chosen not to pursue DI.

Do the sales clerks think they have new information that I don't have? Do they think they have a new undenyable argument? Do they think I've had my head in the sand for 5 years? Do they think I've been on the fence about digital for years and they're going to be the clever clerk to finally get me to see the light?

Any sales clerks out there reading this and thinking "hmmm that description fits me!" Do me a favor. Just sell me my chemicals and film and save the comments for the novice.

 

[Graeme Hird]

Thanks for an interesting thread Frank - you know how to choose an appropriate title, that's for sure!

I think it's off to the bad house for this thread before too long.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Ha, so will this thread get killed? I hope not. The horse shouldn't die in vain.

 

[Graeme Hird]

No, the thread won't be killed, but it is likely to be shifted to the "Digital vs Analog" forum, where is is effectively quarantined.

And the horse died long ago. It's now just piles of brown stuff on the back lawn.

 

[Gim]

Frank, welcome

Its a good site 98% of the time, until......
Just sit back and have a laugh like I do. Cheap entertainment.

 

[Glenn Mathison]

What I did like about PN was the Europeans and Asians (and Oceanians, Sean, thank you) weighing in. They were mostly wrong about stuff mind you, but it is nice to hear it from the Frog's mouth so to speak...

Hey Frank, Croak Croak, and welcome to APUG.

Hope you enjoy your time here. It aint hard to avoid the landmines. But maybe I'm wrong

Regards
Glenn
(From Asia Pacific)