Wiki Author Disses Film Cameras...

Ralph Javins · Jul 5, 2011

Pumalite said:
As far as I know; I use all my cameras. They are all in working order and have a pretty good sense that most in Apug do the same. I have no problems finding film.

Good morning, all;

Pumalite and I have a few things in common. Our cameras work, and we have put into them the effort and the money to see that they are working properly. The wife of my local camera shop owner and operator knows that I am doing my part to see that her husband's shop continues to exist. A full CLA in his shop runs $138.00 USD plus any parts needed (new light seals, et cetera). When you consider the number of camera bodies I have (yes, I agree that I have gone way past being a mere collector and have advanced to the stage of addiction), I actually represent a fair percentage of the cash flow through his shop. Normally I have at least one body in the shop at a time while there are others waiting in line for their turn. At one point, there were three there simultaneously, but that is rare.

I like my cameras, and now I have the ability to indulge myself in possessing a selection of bodies and lenses that will allow me to choose whatever I would like to do technically in taking a photograph. This has not always been the case.

Just as with having pets, having a collection of cameras and lenses also carries a responsibility to see that they are maintained. Just going through the electronic flash units once each month to recharge the batteries and reform the photoflash capacitors in them is a chore that must be performed.

The enjoyable part of this comes when we have days like the last three here in Latte Land when there are blue skies and brilliant colors and I can grab any of the cameras and go out to find things to photograph, knowing that my equipment and the film in them will do the job.

tomalophicon · Jul 5, 2011

Monito said:
Interesting juxtaposition of posts.

Both film and digital are fundamentally electronic imaging systems. They are just tools for expression.

Hey buddy, whatever you say.
I still can't take digital seriously.

tomalophicon · Jul 5, 2011

jnanian said:
i don't find it hard to take it seriously
and from what i understand most of the people in this world
making photographs don't either ...
is this going to become yet another digital v film rant thread ?

who cares which is superior, just shoot more film and print on more paper.

*YAWN*
:munch:

I wasn't talking about anything being superior or otherwise. Just putting it out there how I feel about the process. I also can't take Kazoos seriously, though they aren't necessarily inferior to a tin whistle.

removed account4 · Jul 5, 2011

kazoos and tin whistles have nothing to do with eachohter
one isn't related to the other ...
the problem is that people that spew anti digital rhetoric
usually don't realize they shoot themselves in the foot ...

i couldn't care less one or the other they are nearly the same in my eyes
and now in the eyes of archives as well ...

Monito · Jul 5, 2011

tomalophicon said:
Hey buddy, whatever you say.
I still can't take digital seriously.

Perhaps you can't take the internal combustion engine seriously either. It wouldn't surprise me, given your statement.

tomalophicon · Jul 5, 2011

jnanian said:
kazoos and tin whistles have nothing to do with eachohter
one isn't related to the other ...
the problem is that people that spew anti digital rhetoric
usually don't realize they shoot themselves in the foot ...

i couldn't care less one or the other they are nearly the same in my eyes
and now in the eyes of archives as well ...

Sure they have heaps to do with each other, blow in them and they produce a noise, albeit they are subtly different.

Sure digital and film is basically the same, you gotta be a dud not to realise that.
I just can't take the process seriously (siriusly?).

tomalophicon · Jul 5, 2011

Monito said:
Perhaps you can't take the internal combustion engine seriously either. It wouldn't surprise me, given your statement.

Way off topic pal, but for your information I take them moderatley seriously, when they behave themselves.

Monito · Jul 5, 2011

tomalophicon said:
Way off topic pal, but for your information I take them moderatley seriously, when they behave themselves.

I'm not your pal. You were the one who veered wildly off topic with kazoos earlier.

tomalophicon · Jul 5, 2011

Monito said:
I'm not your pal. You were the one who veered wildly off topic with kazoos earlier.

Every stranger is a pal waiting to be made.
And two wrongs don't make a right, possible future pal

2F/2F · Jul 5, 2011

I take digital very "seriously," myself (whatever the heck that means anyhow). It is the reason so much of the great film stuff is gone, which is a seriously bad thing. It is also a very seriously excellent and formidable tool for certain things, which is a good thing. Regardless of whether you think it is good or bad, it is certainly worthy of being taken "seriously." Maybe a better word would express your point better.

And the other side of the "digital cannot be taken seriously" statement is that "film can only be taken seriously." I think this is hogwash. I don't judge something's "seriousness" based on whether it is film or digital; I judge the work itself. I like to use film primarily, but it doesn't mean that I am any better or more "serious" of a photographer because of it. And my digital work and my film work are effectively identical in the end. The only thing that really determines which one I will shoot is what I need to do with the pictures and how fast I need to do it.

I think rather than judging tools, we should judge people. Good photographers who have what it takes to make good, interesting work will be able to do it with digital or film.

Narrowing things down to a blanket judgment of the medium itself is a sign of a misdirected and useless technical focus IMHO. There has to be a better way to express what you really meant with the "serious" statement. Even if you had just said, "I don't like digital," it would have made more sense to me.

tomalophicon · Jul 5, 2011

4F,
I actually don't not like digital. I use a digital camera from time to time (I even own one!) and think it's useful for certain applications. And you're right, I should have used a different word to describe the way I feel about it, though my un-creative head is having trouble doing that.
When I use digital, the satisfaction I feel when using film isn't there. And whatever people say here, I find the process to be very important, and not merely a tool. I feel intense satisfaction from merely exposing film, all the way through to having prints to show to loved ones. The process itself is a creative outlet for me.
When I use digital, and go into the necessary processing of digital, I just feel... bored, uninspired, flat.
YMMV

I'm not anti-digital, I'm anti me using digital (most of the time).

Tom.

artonpaper · Jul 6, 2011

Street preacher announces the end of film. Digital images at 11:00.

Steve Smith · Jul 6, 2011

jnanian said:
kazoos and tin whistles have nothing to do with each other. one isn't related to the other

tomalophicon said:
Sure they have heaps to do with each other, blow in them and they produce a noise, albeit they are subtly different.

Just to veer off topic slightly (again). You don't blow into a kazoo for it to make noise, you have to make the noise yourself and the kazoo modifies the tone.

Steve.

tomalophicon · Jul 6, 2011

Steve Smith said:
Just to veer off topic slightly (again). You don't blow into a kazoo for it to make noise, you have to make the noise yourself and the kazoo modifies the tone.

Steve.

Steve, of course, thanks for clarifying. Maybe the comparison was unsuitable afterall. However, that noise is still air coming from your mouth into the kazoo.
Still, doesn't change my opinion of them.

smcclarin · Jul 6, 2011

I think Digital is the reason so many are returning to film... As for the internal combustion engine, when we run out of Oil and Gas, and we have developed electrical vehicles, the Bicycle will still be around, pencils and charcoal, and paint brushes for art will still be around and hopefully fully manual film cameras will still be around. I am sure there will still be people to use them. I see digital as a great entry level tool for self education, it certainly increases the learning curve, but at some point you need to fly instead of walk, at some point discovering the genious behind manually burning and dodging, and the first bariable contrast print will gain us insight into a way of thinking that photoshop just cant muster.

Diapositivo · Jul 6, 2011

I don't manage to take any post too seriously and too literally. Saying one cannot take the digital process seriously is not so much more in need of clarification than saying that ultimately analogue photographic is electronic as well, because, you know, electrons activate the silver. Sorry mate, "electronic" doesn't mean that in our language.

When we discuss seriously, it's nice to seriously make a point. Addressing and challenging people over casual remarks only makes noise.

I understand what tomalophicon says, and I think many digital photographers can't take the process "seriously" either. Because there is so little work and cost between pressing the shutter and seeing the final result on the back of the camera, people - myself included - tend to concentrate less on composition, exposure, right moment etc.

I notice this myself when I use my digital. Mind you, I might take 100 frames in 4 hours, I don't use the camera as a machine-gun. Nonetheless I know that when using film I am more thoughtful about all the phases of the process (composition, focus, exposure, moment). Digital works in the back of my mind, tends to let me be a bit less careful, and I can't help it really more than much. It's a slow work, but not as slow.

fstop · Jul 6, 2011

smcclarin said:
I think Digital is the reason so many are returning to film...

I agree,there are a lot of reasons for it. One being there are some many cameras on the market at affordable prices that would have been otherwise unobtainable for many people when they were new.

Case in point: my F3 and 35-105. That combo was $1400 new in 1997, I got it for less than 200 in EX+ condition.

Take a look at the listings on ebay, how many say the owner is switching to digital? So for many digital camera sales there is a used 35mm camera sold to a film enthusiast.Many of the cameras have been sitting in closets not being used.

Monito · Jul 6, 2011

Diapositivo said:
I think many digital photographers can't take the process "seriously" either. Because there is so little work and cost between pressing the shutter and seeing the final result on the back of the camera, people - myself included - tend to concentrate less on composition, exposure, right moment etc.

Well, that's what people who don't take it seriously would say and how they would react.

On the other hand, people who take photography seriously, be it A or D, spend as much time as necessary, before, during, and after the picture as is needed to make a good photograph. "Little cost"? Time is money, so to speak. Even a non-pro should count their time as precious.

It's bizarre to see simultaneous bashing of the "other" medium for being no-effort and too-manipulated. Such cognitive dissonance bespeaks ignorance of how to use the medium or irrational fear of it.

Steve Smith · Jul 6, 2011

Monito said:
Time is money, so to speak. Even a non-pro should count their time as precious.

I count my personal time as being much more precious than my working time.

Steve.

markbarendt · Jul 6, 2011

Steve Smith said:
I count my personal time as being much more precious than my working time.

Steve.

That is why I must be paid to do my job.

removed account4 · Jul 6, 2011

is it now being suggested that if someone has a lab do the printing for them
they aren't serious as well??

Monito · Jul 6, 2011

jnanian said:
is it now being suggested that if someone has a lab do the printing for them they aren't serious as well??

That's the implication. It's bizarre, isn't it.

removed account4 · Jul 6, 2011

Monito said:
That's the implication. It's bizarre, isn't it.

sure is !

tomalophicon · Jul 6, 2011

What's this mixed-up world coming to?

artonpaper · Jul 6, 2011

tomalophicon said:
4F,
I actually don't not like digital. I use a digital camera from time to time (I even own one!) and think it's useful for certain applications. And you're right, I should have used a different word to describe the way I feel about it, though my un-creative head is having trouble doing that.
When I use digital, the satisfaction I feel when using film isn't there. And whatever people say here, I find the process to be very important, and not merely a tool. I feel intense satisfaction from merely exposing film, all the way through to having prints to show to loved ones. The process itself is a creative outlet for me.
When I use digital, and go into the necessary processing of digital, I just feel... bored, uninspired, flat.
YMMV

I'm not anti-digital, I'm anti me using digital (most of the time).

Tom.

Could not agree more. I teach both digital and analogue. I have compared digital photography to warming a frozen dinner in the micro wave, as compared to making a curry where one has ground all the spices, stirred, tasted, adjusted the seasoning and then serves it up with a flair. Now I'm hungry, damn it.

Wiki Author Disses Film Cameras...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency