In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


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


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.

you don't speak for all film photographers (or any, actually) and you
have *no* idea why any given film photographer chooses film.

i also wasn't talking about some fuzzy unquantifiable 'experience'.

the problem is that film photographers claim the impossible. they claim
film can do things that digital cannot which is flat out false.

they claim things such as digital doesn't have 'the film look' without
ever saying which film (i.e., it's completely meaningless). they don't
realize that digital can have whatever 'film look' they want, all from
the same capture. velvia today, kodachrome tomorrow. it's all there.

digital is far more capable than film ever was and can do everything
film can do and quite a bit more. this is a mathematically provable
fact.

people are welcome to choose whatever they want, but should do based on
facts. most film photographers do so based on myths.