On 2017-04-21 17:37:10 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2017-04-21 17:07:21 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:16:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-21 15:21:03 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:13:49 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Since when do we need a "reason" to pursue a hobby from which we
derive pleasure? Since when is someone else's way of pursuing a hobby
not legitimate?

Not one person is arguing that film is not a legitimate pursuit. It's
the claims of the superiority of film output that we are arguing
about.

Who made that claim? I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied
that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed.

it was claimed.

This is what nospam does to a thread to create an argument where there
should not be an argument. The thread started on the subject of
scanners. Then, Russell D. posted: "Exactly what I was thinking when
I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started
shooting film again. Glad I didn't sell it."

No claim that film is superior. No claim that he can do something
with film that can't be done with digital. Just a simple statement
that he started shooting film again.

in another post, he claimed film can do things digital cannot. that is
a completely bogus claim.

once again, you are twisting things.

Liar. Talk abut twisting things, you were saying that claims were
made about film being superior long before Russell made any comment
about film vs digital in this thread.

What Russell posted late in the thread was:

"Bill, I can take shoot a roll of TriX and develop it in D-76 1:1 and
get one look and then stand develop another roll in 1:100 Rodinal for
an hour and get another look and then develop another roll in coffee
(Caffenol) for yet another look. It's fun. You cannot duplicate the
experience or the look with digital. Film has a unique look. It is not
better or worse than digital. It is just different."

He was referring to *his* experience, and that's a perfectly valid
claim.

However, each of those rolls of Tri-X is limited to its singular and
unique developing process, whereas a single digital exposure can be
processed with as many different film emulations you care to experiment
with, without loosing the experimental experience.

True, that. But is that what Russell wants to do?

I wouldn't know. He hasn't told us if he has even thought of that approach.

Shoot and process
in such a way that he has unlimited revision choices, or shoot and
process in such a way that he has to do it right the first time?

Shooting digital doesn't stop you from getting things "right the first
time", and locking into those results without any post processing.
Especially if you shoot JPEG only, and use a camera which gives you
very good SOOC options with in-camera film emulation choices. here I am
thinking selfishly of my X-T2.
http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/2017/3/19/forget-raw-and-go-acros-the-definitive-review

The
point,

in this case, is not what *can* be done, but Russell *wants
to do*. I'm sure Russell knows the options available in digital, but
he chooses to go a different way because "It's fun".

It is always about want each of us *wants to do*, and I am sure that it
is fun for him. However, I am not so sure that he does know all the
digital options available to him, or if he even cares that there are
such options.

Why on earth would anyone object to this?

Only one person I can think off.

Or label his choice as the
"mediocre" way to go?

He who labels without thinking things through, or caring about any
opinions than his.

I guess along the way this was missed.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/great-film-renaissance-2017
--


Regards,

Savageduck