If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1001
|
|||
|
|||
"me" wrote in message
... "Skip M" wrote in message news:jA9ud.131$2r.107@fed1read02... "Mike Kohary" wrote in message ... me wrote: Film good, digital fecal! Why do you even own a computer and post on Usenet? So I can have a good laugh once and a while at digital dullard's expense. Film, digital dullards can't even understand *why* it's better, and it's hopeless to try and explain it to them! me film has advantages, especially when working in black and white. Progress too. Now try harder. Film, I get it, you don't, me You don't get it, and you don't want to. If you did get it, you'd have to reassess your photographic basis, and you are incapable of that. That is, of course, based on the assumption that you are some sort of photographer. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#1002
|
|||
|
|||
"me" wrote in message
... "Skip M" wrote in message news:jA9ud.131$2r.107@fed1read02... "Mike Kohary" wrote in message ... me wrote: Film good, digital fecal! Why do you even own a computer and post on Usenet? So I can have a good laugh once and a while at digital dullard's expense. Film, digital dullards can't even understand *why* it's better, and it's hopeless to try and explain it to them! me film has advantages, especially when working in black and white. Progress too. Now try harder. Film, I get it, you don't, me You don't get it, and you don't want to. If you did get it, you'd have to reassess your photographic basis, and you are incapable of that. That is, of course, based on the assumption that you are some sort of photographer. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#1003
|
|||
|
|||
"me" wrote in message
... "Skip M" wrote in message news:jA9ud.131$2r.107@fed1read02... "Mike Kohary" wrote in message ... me wrote: Film good, digital fecal! Why do you even own a computer and post on Usenet? So I can have a good laugh once and a while at digital dullard's expense. Film, digital dullards can't even understand *why* it's better, and it's hopeless to try and explain it to them! me film has advantages, especially when working in black and white. Progress too. Now try harder. Film, I get it, you don't, me You don't get it, and you don't want to. If you did get it, you'd have to reassess your photographic basis, and you are incapable of that. That is, of course, based on the assumption that you are some sort of photographer. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#1004
|
|||
|
|||
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:ts9ud.129$2r.45@fed1read02... "Jon Pike" wrote in message . 159... Carl wrote in : Jon Pike wrote: "Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168 : Why is film better? snip... It encourages people to learn how to do photography instead of just take pictures. Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it achieve this exactly? Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a body that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since you don't really need to spend the $ to be able to take good pictures. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet Actually most people, when learning photography, do just that, go out and buy something with a plethora of whistles and bells. How many new cameras are like the Pentax K1000? Not many. Pentax ZX-M full manual except for AP mode. Look at the Rebel T2. Does everything the RebelD does, and more. Except capture digital files... Admittedly the Rebel T2 doesn't cost 1/3 of what the RebelD does, but it's digital, add up the film costs... And, vis a vis your earlier statement, film doesn't have higher resolution than digital. Some film may have higher resolution than some digital cameras, same with accutance. But I'd challenge you to find a film that competes with the high resolution MF backs, or the Mamiya ZD, or 35mm that competes with the Canon 1Ds mkII, or even the 20D. You can discuss lpmm, but in real life, film does not offer discernable advantages over digital, any more. The only reason I continue to shoot film is that I like some of the papers available for printing negs better than the papers available for digital prints. Who gives a dam what you do? Film is better no matter how hard some people try not to accept it! me |
#1005
|
|||
|
|||
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:ts9ud.129$2r.45@fed1read02... "Jon Pike" wrote in message . 159... Carl wrote in : Jon Pike wrote: "Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168 : Why is film better? snip... It encourages people to learn how to do photography instead of just take pictures. Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it achieve this exactly? Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a body that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since you don't really need to spend the $ to be able to take good pictures. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet Actually most people, when learning photography, do just that, go out and buy something with a plethora of whistles and bells. How many new cameras are like the Pentax K1000? Not many. Pentax ZX-M full manual except for AP mode. Look at the Rebel T2. Does everything the RebelD does, and more. Except capture digital files... Admittedly the Rebel T2 doesn't cost 1/3 of what the RebelD does, but it's digital, add up the film costs... And, vis a vis your earlier statement, film doesn't have higher resolution than digital. Some film may have higher resolution than some digital cameras, same with accutance. But I'd challenge you to find a film that competes with the high resolution MF backs, or the Mamiya ZD, or 35mm that competes with the Canon 1Ds mkII, or even the 20D. You can discuss lpmm, but in real life, film does not offer discernable advantages over digital, any more. The only reason I continue to shoot film is that I like some of the papers available for printing negs better than the papers available for digital prints. Who gives a dam what you do? Film is better no matter how hard some people try not to accept it! me |
#1006
|
|||
|
|||
Petros wrote in
: Jon Pike posted: "Fitpix" wrote in : "Jon Pike" wrote in message . 159... Carl wrote in : Jon Pike wrote: "Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168 : Why is film better? snip... It encourages people to learn how to do photography instead of just take pictures. Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it achieve this exactly? Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a body that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since you don't really need to spend the $ to be able to take good pictures. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I worked in and managed camera shops for about 5 years and before there was even the idea of digital you still had people burning through dozens of rolls of film with little thought. Now the same type of peole fill their hard drive with crap. Regardless of it being film or digital many people will pick up "photography" and never put a bit of thought to an image, I think we could call them snapshooters. I call them "picture takers" to completely differentiate them from anyone actually -doing- photography. One thing I have noticed with both is there will ALWAYS be the group who think a better camera = better photography and of course we know that really is not true. Yes, but I doubt this group is "most" people. With digital I see more people taking crappy pix and then adding a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other programs and trying to pass it off as "art". I think it boils down to each person and their individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up being the deciding factor, not the medium. Well, only to a point. With film, if you want to be guarenteed to have better pictures, you -have- to learn photoGRAPHY. With digital, all you have to do is learn photoSHOP. Again, you're exhibiting unrealistic ideals. That's like saying that the only way to be a great architect is to learn how to draw a building using a T-square, compass and triangles instead of using CAD, or the only way to be a great painter is to learn all the basics, from cave painting to modernism. Here's a painting by Jan van Eyck, which according to you, probably wouldn't be considered a real painting or a great one, since he never looked at the subject, but painted the image upside-down as it was cast through a lens. You caould argue that anyone with a brush could do the same thing, without learning how to paint. BTW, the original format is 1:1, matching the lens ratio. http://www.abcgallery.com/E/eyck/eyck2.JPG Trolling again? That's not what I'm saying at all. There's a difference between requiring someone to know tintypes, degarrotypes, and pinhole cameras, and requiring that they actually know what f/stops and shutter speeds do. You don't learn these things when you pick up a digicam and just start clicking away with all settings on full auto. Even if you know photoshop inside and out, you're still not doing photoGRAPHY if you don't have a handle on such simple basics. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet |
#1007
|
|||
|
|||
Petros wrote in
: Jon Pike posted: "Fitpix" wrote in : "Jon Pike" wrote in message . 159... Carl wrote in : Jon Pike wrote: "Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168 : Why is film better? snip... It encourages people to learn how to do photography instead of just take pictures. Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it achieve this exactly? Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a body that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since you don't really need to spend the $ to be able to take good pictures. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I worked in and managed camera shops for about 5 years and before there was even the idea of digital you still had people burning through dozens of rolls of film with little thought. Now the same type of peole fill their hard drive with crap. Regardless of it being film or digital many people will pick up "photography" and never put a bit of thought to an image, I think we could call them snapshooters. I call them "picture takers" to completely differentiate them from anyone actually -doing- photography. One thing I have noticed with both is there will ALWAYS be the group who think a better camera = better photography and of course we know that really is not true. Yes, but I doubt this group is "most" people. With digital I see more people taking crappy pix and then adding a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other programs and trying to pass it off as "art". I think it boils down to each person and their individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up being the deciding factor, not the medium. Well, only to a point. With film, if you want to be guarenteed to have better pictures, you -have- to learn photoGRAPHY. With digital, all you have to do is learn photoSHOP. Again, you're exhibiting unrealistic ideals. That's like saying that the only way to be a great architect is to learn how to draw a building using a T-square, compass and triangles instead of using CAD, or the only way to be a great painter is to learn all the basics, from cave painting to modernism. Here's a painting by Jan van Eyck, which according to you, probably wouldn't be considered a real painting or a great one, since he never looked at the subject, but painted the image upside-down as it was cast through a lens. You caould argue that anyone with a brush could do the same thing, without learning how to paint. BTW, the original format is 1:1, matching the lens ratio. http://www.abcgallery.com/E/eyck/eyck2.JPG Trolling again? That's not what I'm saying at all. There's a difference between requiring someone to know tintypes, degarrotypes, and pinhole cameras, and requiring that they actually know what f/stops and shutter speeds do. You don't learn these things when you pick up a digicam and just start clicking away with all settings on full auto. Even if you know photoshop inside and out, you're still not doing photoGRAPHY if you don't have a handle on such simple basics. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet |
#1008
|
|||
|
|||
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:%Rhud.543$2r.121@fed1read02... "me" wrote in message ... "Skip M" wrote in message news:jA9ud.131$2r.107@fed1read02... "Mike Kohary" wrote in message ... me wrote: Film good, digital fecal! Why do you even own a computer and post on Usenet? So I can have a good laugh once and a while at digital dullard's expense. Film, digital dullards can't even understand *why* it's better, and it's hopeless to try and explain it to them! me film has advantages, especially when working in black and white. Progress too. Now try harder. Film, I get it, you don't, me You don't get it, and you don't want to. Not *your* point of view I don't. If you did get it, you'd have to reassess your photographic basis, and you are incapable of that. That is, of course, based on the assumption that you are some sort of photographer. I'm quite comfortable with my bias (a.k.a. integrity). Let's agree to disagree. me |
#1009
|
|||
|
|||
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:%Rhud.543$2r.121@fed1read02... "me" wrote in message ... "Skip M" wrote in message news:jA9ud.131$2r.107@fed1read02... "Mike Kohary" wrote in message ... me wrote: Film good, digital fecal! Why do you even own a computer and post on Usenet? So I can have a good laugh once and a while at digital dullard's expense. Film, digital dullards can't even understand *why* it's better, and it's hopeless to try and explain it to them! me film has advantages, especially when working in black and white. Progress too. Now try harder. Film, I get it, you don't, me You don't get it, and you don't want to. Not *your* point of view I don't. If you did get it, you'd have to reassess your photographic basis, and you are incapable of that. That is, of course, based on the assumption that you are some sort of photographer. I'm quite comfortable with my bias (a.k.a. integrity). Let's agree to disagree. me |
#1010
|
|||
|
|||
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:%Rhud.543$2r.121@fed1read02... "me" wrote in message ... "Skip M" wrote in message news:jA9ud.131$2r.107@fed1read02... "Mike Kohary" wrote in message ... me wrote: Film good, digital fecal! Why do you even own a computer and post on Usenet? So I can have a good laugh once and a while at digital dullard's expense. Film, digital dullards can't even understand *why* it's better, and it's hopeless to try and explain it to them! me film has advantages, especially when working in black and white. Progress too. Now try harder. Film, I get it, you don't, me You don't get it, and you don't want to. Not *your* point of view I don't. If you did get it, you'd have to reassess your photographic basis, and you are incapable of that. That is, of course, based on the assumption that you are some sort of photographer. I'm quite comfortable with my bias (a.k.a. integrity). Let's agree to disagree. me |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I need to transfer my digital files to 35mm slides and negatives output and other film format outputs? | Chris | Digital Photography | 5 | September 25th 04 07:43 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 274 | July 30th 04 12:26 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 10:51 PM |