On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 22:51:18 +1000, Noons wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 20/08/2011 8:35 AM:
:
:
: Watching those diehards is a touching experience, like an anthropologist
: observing a primitive tribe in New Guinea.
:
: Amazing. Why did you watch, then?

Idle curiosity. The same reason you read my article.

: of modernity, so too will the children of these last "analog" photographers
: use only digital cameras, viewing their parents' peculiar obsession with
: bemused detachment.
:
: And yet, with one exception, the folks in that clip are very young, certainly
: younger than most of the deadbeats around here. Goes to show, doesn't it?

That's true. They're older than my grandchildren, but mostly younger than my
kids. But neither of my kids has touched a film camera for as long as I can
remember, and my grandchildren have never even seen one. All are digital
camera users of varying degrees of avidity.

What we see in the video are a very few people out of a very large city who
share an interest in a technology from the past. You will also, in almost any
large city, find people making vinyl records or refurbishing antique
automobiles. Some resurrect old steam locomotives and run them on tourist
lines. They, like the "analog" photographers in the video, are statistically
insignificant, and their existence does not suggest that vinyl records will
ever return to common use or that steam locomotives will ever again be part of
our transportation system. And the existence of a tiny group of film
enthusiasts doesn't mean that film photography will make a comeback in the
real economy. You and I both know that it simply isn't going to happen.

: Film may not be dead, but it's drawing its final labored breaths and will
: soon be relegated to antique shows and museums. Requiescat in pace.
:
: I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that bull**** in the last
: 112 years.

Well, 112 years ago it *was* bull****! Even 11 or 12 years ago, which may be
what you meant to say, it wasn't yet true, but the handwriting was on the
wall. (I believe the first time I saw a commercially available digital camera
put to practical use was in 1998. It was expensive and didn't produce very
good pictures, but you could see where things were headed.)

: Usually from some low-life troll like you, trying to push their own
: little digital imaging "business" aspirations.

Call me a low-life troll if you like; it's an opinion I have no way to
dispute. But your ability to jump to absurd conclusions is almost comical. Who
told you I'm pushing "digital imaging business aspirations"? I take pictures
at work (for our Web site and photo archives, for magazines and report covers,
to give to award recipients, etc.), and I use digital cameras to do it. But
that decision is as much theirs as mine. If I told them I wanted to switch to
film, they'd tell me to go fly a kite.

: Ah well, it must hurt like buggery...

Go back on your meds, Noons. You're starting to embarrass yourself again.

Bob