On 04/18/2017 11:45 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:06:55 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:48:12 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:01:41 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:22:15 -0600, "Russell D."
wrote:

On 04/18/2017 05:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D.
wrote:

buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when
you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore.

Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored
with digital and started shooting film again.

bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film.

Why do I need it to do more?

why limit yourself?

I'm not.

if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it.

Mediocre is relative.

how can anyone be bored with it?

Pretty easily. And many do.

not that many and fewer every day.

False. Film sales are increasing.

Try it you'll like it. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker.

Russell

It's not like nospam needs my help, but your criticism is unfair.
There are two sides to photography - technical and artistic. Nospam
has never joined in any threads regarding any photos that anyone has
posted. He has never criticized any photo from an artistic viewpoint -
it's just not what he does here. He clearly has vast technical
knowledge on many photography related subjects, and the technical side
is all he *ever* posts on. And that says absolutely nothing about his
photographic skills. He could be a star, and he might suck. Who knows,
and who cares? Any criticism of his technical comments are certainly
understandable, right or wrong, but commenting on his skills as a
photographer makes no sense at all.

While your point is somewhat valid, but nospam commenting on artistic
choice makes no sense. And, shooting film is an artistic choice.

For him to say that capturing on film is "mediocre" is like telling an
artist who paints with water colors that the choice of water colors
will yield a mediocre result compared to using oil. Or that an
charcoal sketch is a mediocre painting compared to trompe l'oeil.

I disagree. The way I see it, his comments on film vs digital are
strictly technical. To me he is saying that there is *nothing* you can
do with film that you cannot do with digital, so there is no artistic
choice to be make in the first place.

No, the difference is not technical. From an artistic point of view,
how you get there is part of the artistic effort. The film experience
goes from taking the photograph, to processing the negative, to making
prints. That whole experience is what the film photographer enjoys.

In digital, you take the photograph, process the files, and make the
print. Similar steps, but not the steps that the film enthusiasts
enjoys. I enjoy the digital steps, but I recognize that not everyone
feels the same way.

If you don't understand - as nospam doesn't - the enjoyment of going
through the film steps, and think only of the result, you'll never
understand why the film photographer does what he does.

Any non-professional who feels that the only thing that matters in
photography is the result is - in my opinion - really missing
something in this wonderful hobby.


Excellent points, Tony. That last paragraph is spot on.

Russell

Tony gets it.