FILM IS DEAD !

In article .com,
"Annika1980" wrote:

On Mar 31, 9:20 am, "Scott W" wrote:

A few like Harry L. will show us that film is not dead but actually
showing us real photos that he has taken with film, go Harry. Just
one of Harry's photos speak far more to the subject then all the
ranting from others who want to tell us just how many rolls of film
they have frozen.

Of course the subject of Harry's pics died 36 years ago ... about 30
years before film died.

R.I.P. Edie.
R.I.P. Film.

The logic of that statement totally escapes me. The Edie pictures I
posted were not *my* pictures, as you well know, while Scott was indeed
referring to pictures *I* took. (And thanks for the kind words, Scott.)
I posted the Edie pictures to illustrate that ultra-sharpness and wide
dynamic range and gorgeous color may not be the canonical goal all
should strive for. There's room for diversity; we don't all march to
the same drummer.

And I have absolutely no intention of joining the stupid ****ing
contests that dominate this group and the puerile language that
permeates many of them. Don't get me wrong: I'm a strong advocate of
"colorful" language, but it should be used effectively and with style.
Otherwise, it just displays the limitations of the user. (Mental
flashback: Jose Ferrer in Cyrano de Bergerac.)

My approach to photography, that is, creating a specific image - as
amateurish as it may be - says something about me and my esthetics, not
about my equipment. If and when digital capture becomes compelling (for
me) I will embrace it. That hasn't happened yet.

HFL

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

Noons wrote:
On Apr 1, 7:17 am, "Starlord" wrote:

I've just added 5 more rolls od film to my freezer and took out one rool of
slide film to put in a film camera.

Heck, I"m even considering
a 2ndhand freezer for the garage
so I can keep more film!


There's no real need for that.

By the most pessimistic prognostications film will still be around for
another 10 years at least. Even Kodak brand film will be around,
although no longer manufactured in Rochester and possibly not
manufactured by Eastman Kodak.

B&W film especially seems to be undergoing a resurgence.

Noons wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:00 pm, "Annika1980" wrote:
Get over it.


troll...


Actually, you are too kind.

Harry Lockwood wrote:
In article .com,
"Annika1980" wrote:

On Mar 31, 9:20 am, "Scott W" wrote:

A few like Harry L. will show us that film is not dead but actually
showing us real photos that he has taken with film, go Harry. Just
one of Harry's photos speak far more to the subject then all the
ranting from others who want to tell us just how many rolls of film
they have frozen.
Of course the subject of Harry's pics died 36 years ago ... about 30
years before film died.

R.I.P. Edie.
R.I.P. Film.

The logic of that statement totally escapes me. The Edie pictures I
posted were not *my* pictures, as you well know, while Scott was indeed
referring to pictures *I* took. (And thanks for the kind words, Scott.)
I posted the Edie pictures to illustrate that ultra-sharpness and wide
dynamic range and gorgeous color may not be the canonical goal all
should strive for. There's room for diversity; we don't all march to
the same drummer.


snip

My approach to photography, that is, creating a specific image - as
amateurish as it may be - says something about me and my esthetics, not
about my equipment. If and when digital capture becomes compelling (for
me) I will embrace it. That hasn't happened yet.


And may never happen.

One thing the digirazzi don't seem to understand is that many
photographers have goals beyond instant gratification and pixel envy.

Bret ended up in my kill-file not because he is offensive; but because
ultimately I found his endless "MY CAMERA IS THE GREATEST THING EVER
INVENTED SO I DONT HAVE TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY BECAUSE MY
CAMERA DOES EVERYTHING BETTER THAN YOURS AND THAT MAKES MY DICK BIGGER
THAN YOURS" shtick, offensive though it may be, bored me to tears.

That and the fact his images didn't "walk the walk".

Based on the second hand glimpses I receive of his posts, I still have
no reason to revise my opinion of his writing or his photography.

Photo + Graphy = Light + Drawing. [Yes I know that *technically* the
Greek root of graphy means writing, but ... none-the-less]

Has the ballpoint pen eliminated the pencil? Have acrylics replaced
oils, watercolors, pastel chalks, pen & ink or charcoal in every
instance? They're just tools, and you use the tool most suitable for the
work you want to do.

Yes, I know, the digirazzi now have a nifty power screwdriver, and it's
just too damn bad if I need to drive nails.

Nails are dead! Get over it.

In the same way, digital does not, indeed *cannot* replace film.

In my own work, digital and film are complementary. I shoot subjects in
multiple formats, choosing from 4x5, 645/120, 35mm & digital. Each
combination of format and media gives me a different freedom of
expression to create the image that suits my purpose.

In article ,
Pudentame wrote:

Harry Lockwood wrote:
In article .com,
"Annika1980" wrote:

On Mar 31, 9:20 am, "Scott W" wrote:

A few like Harry L. will show us that film is not dead but actually
showing us real photos that he has taken with film, go Harry. Just
one of Harry's photos speak far more to the subject then all the
ranting from others who want to tell us just how many rolls of film
they have frozen.
Of course the subject of Harry's pics died 36 years ago ... about 30
years before film died.

R.I.P. Edie.
R.I.P. Film.

The logic of that statement totally escapes me. The Edie pictures I
posted were not *my* pictures, as you well know, while Scott was indeed
referring to pictures *I* took. (And thanks for the kind words, Scott.)
I posted the Edie pictures to illustrate that ultra-sharpness and wide
dynamic range and gorgeous color may not be the canonical goal all
should strive for. There's room for diversity; we don't all march to
the same drummer.


snip

My approach to photography, that is, creating a specific image - as
amateurish as it may be - says something about me and my esthetics, not
about my equipment. If and when digital capture becomes compelling (for
me) I will embrace it. That hasn't happened yet.


And may never happen.

One thing the digirazzi don't seem to understand is that many
photographers have goals beyond instant gratification and pixel envy.

Bret ended up in my kill-file not because he is offensive; but because
ultimately I found his endless "MY CAMERA IS THE GREATEST THING EVER
INVENTED SO I DONT HAVE TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY BECAUSE MY
CAMERA DOES EVERYTHING BETTER THAN YOURS AND THAT MAKES MY DICK BIGGER
THAN YOURS" shtick, offensive though it may be, bored me to tears.

That and the fact his images didn't "walk the walk".

Based on the second hand glimpses I receive of his posts, I still have
no reason to revise my opinion of his writing or his photography.

Photo + Graphy = Light + Drawing. [Yes I know that *technically* the
Greek root of graphy means writing, but ... none-the-less]

Has the ballpoint pen eliminated the pencil? Have acrylics replaced
oils, watercolors, pastel chalks, pen & ink or charcoal in every
instance? They're just tools, and you use the tool most suitable for the
work you want to do.

Yes, I know, the digirazzi now have a nifty power screwdriver, and it's
just too damn bad if I need to drive nails.

Nails are dead! Get over it.

In the same way, digital does not, indeed *cannot* replace film.

In my own work, digital and film are complementary. I shoot subjects in
multiple formats, choosing from 4x5, 645/120, 35mm & digital. Each
combination of format and media gives me a different freedom of
expression to create the image that suits my purpose.

And I'm building a lust for an M7 with 0.85 VF. Talk about retro!

HFl

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

On Mar 31, 5:17 pm, "Starlord"
wrote:
I've just added 5 more rolls od film to my freezer and took out one rool of
slide film to put in a film camera.

Wow! Five rolls! What is that .....180 shots?
I took about twice that many just yesterday.
Saw the results the same day. Today I may go out and improve on some
of those shots.

Who Rules?

Pudentame wrote:

One thing the digirazzi don't seem to understand is that many
photographers have goals beyond instant gratification and pixel envy.

Bret ended up in my kill-file not because he is offensive; but because
ultimately I found his endless "MY CAMERA IS THE GREATEST THING EVER
INVENTED SO I DONT HAVE TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY BECAUSE MY
CAMERA DOES EVERYTHING BETTER THAN YOURS AND THAT MAKES MY DICK BIGGER
THAN YOURS" shtick, offensive though it may be, bored me to tears.

That and the fact his images didn't "walk the walk".

Based on the second hand glimpses I receive of his posts, I still have
no reason to revise my opinion of his writing or his photography.

Photo + Graphy = Light + Drawing. [Yes I know that *technically* the
Greek root of graphy means writing, but ... none-the-less]

Has the ballpoint pen eliminated the pencil? Have acrylics replaced
oils, watercolors, pastel chalks, pen & ink or charcoal in every
instance? They're just tools, and you use the tool most suitable for the
work you want to do.

Yes, I know, the digirazzi now have a nifty power screwdriver, and it's
just too damn bad if I need to drive nails.

Nails are dead! Get over it.

In the same way, digital does not, indeed *cannot* replace film.

In my own work, digital and film are complementary. I shoot subjects in
multiple formats, choosing from 4x5, 645/120, 35mm & digital. Each
combination of format and media gives me a different freedom of
expression to create the image that suits my purpose.


Well said, sir!! You have my full support.

Annika1980 wrote:

On Mar 31, 5:17 pm, "Starlord"
wrote:

I've just added 5 more rolls od film to my freezer and took out one rool of
slide film to put in a film camera.

Wow! Five rolls! What is that .....180 shots?

You can be a real ass.

I took about twice that many just yesterday.

And how many were worth a pinch?
Let's see your 360 TOTALLY AWESOME pictures, huh.

Saw the results the same day. Today I may go out and improve on all
of those shots.

Typo corrected! :P

Who Rules?

Certainly not some machine-gunning equipment whore like you.

You really need to see that Sartore documentary. I think it just might
knock into your head the notion that good photographs don't magically
jump into the camera. I'll send you a CD if you promise to watch it.

-Moo!

On Apr 2, 1:04 am, Pudentame wrote:


There's no real need for that.

yeah, but I like being able to have
a selection to grab from. And a
2nd place to keep drinks for a
bbq or party.


By the most pessimistic prognostications film will still be around for
another 10 years at least. Even Kodak brand film will be around,
although no longer manufactured in Rochester and possibly not
manufactured by Eastman Kodak.

Oh, I'll be all digital long bedfore that!
With the possible exception of the 6x7:
don't think dslrs will get anywhere near
that kind of imagery any time soon.
It'd need another rez war between N and C
top pro gear and N is not playing ball,
so it won't happen.


B&W film especially seems to be undergoing a resurgence.

yup, it certainly is. I'm back to developing my
own now as well. Last did it back in the 80s!

On Apr 2, 3:13 am, "Annika1980" wrote:



I took about twice that many just yesterday.

What was that about quality over quantity?

Saw the results the same day. Today I may go out and improve on some
of those shots.

Bingo.