20D GETS PUT OUT TO PASTURE !!!

Oh Jeremy. Check your quotes before you use them in a match flame.


I have know many "film" photographers who have blown past me and
others in their pursuit of capturing imagery.


Draco


Getting even isn't good enoiugh.

Ain't Nothing wrong with that old Ford just like nothing wrong with
film bodies. You can do some cool stuff with older equipment. The old
Ford back seat would permit some terrific experimenting. Don't know if
totally digital folks can relate to that.

Scott W wrote:

Tom Hudson wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote:
What more can one expect of a digital fundamentalist (or is it more
politically correct to call them "Photogr..." er, "Filmicly Challenged
Persons"?)

Just curious, but you are aware that the only real difference between a
digital and a film camera is the method of recording the image?

You will find that many of the film people are aware of very little.
They don't know that there is no battle between film and digital, that
was settle some time ago and film lost. They are not aware that they
are clinging to a dying technology. They are not aware that
corporations that make film as selling less of it because people just
don't want it anymore, they believe that film just isn't being marketed
right. Agfa film when out of business not because there was not market
for their product but because it was not run the way they would have
run it.

They would like to believe that they are the photographic elite.

They hate Bret, Bret use to shoot a lot of film, but now he shoots
digital, that is bad enough. But Bret's photos have gotten better
overall since he started shooting digital. Bret's macro photos are
better then what any of them have done with their film cameras.

They would like to believe that film manufacturers will continue to
make film for the handful of them that will still be shooting film 10
years from now. They would like to think that people give a rat's
ass that they are using film instead of digital

Buy try not to be too hard on them, theirs is not an easy life. They
shout to the world "I USE FILM HONOR ME" and the world says why?
They are watching as their form of photography is disappearing, films
no longer on the shelf, films once loved no longer made. Processing
labs going out of business. The value of their film cameras dropping to
a fraction of what they paid from time. They have to live will all of
this plus the uncertainty of what films will be here next year and the
year after. When will the film they have learned to love go out of
production.

So they strikeout at those who have abandoned film. And as there
become fewer and fewer of them they have to start specking louder and
louder to be heard. Film shooter have become a rare sight, that is the
ones using 35mm SLRs. Oh I still see people using the disposable film
cameras from time to time but it has been a long time since I have seen
a film SLR, I use to see them all the time. I will think I have seen
one and get all excited, but then I see the guy chimping, just another
DSLR.

Scott

Right on, Amen to that (apart from the typo's but I think passion got in
the way there).

Colin D.

Jeremy wrote:


You will find that many of the film people are aware of very little.
They don't know that there is no battle between film and digital, that
was settle some time ago and film lost. They are not aware that they
are clinging to a dying technology. They are not aware that
corporations that make film as selling less of it because people just
don't want it anymore, they believe that film just isn't being marketed
right. Agfa film when out of business not because there was not market
for their product but because it was not run the way they would have
run it.

They would like to believe that they are the photographic elite.


What a crock! Now we have mindreaders, that presume to know what we think!

That poster was just another of those brainless "Film Is Dead" guys, posting
under the guise of having an intelligent exchange of ideas.

He posts in a NG that has always been film-oriented, and then proceeds to
preach to us, as though he held the Ultimate Truth! Gimme' a break already
. . .

Aha. Methinks Jeremy and Chris have their backs to the wall - because
they are attacking the man, sans any technical response.

Colin D.

Scott W wrote:

Bret posted a link to a photo, and as is often the case a number of
film fanatics put it down because it was digital.

I'm a fanatic now? Wow!!!

I was just poking (friendly) fun at Bret's "photo of the day"; actually
I was responding to someone else's "boring" comment. How viscious!!!


So was Bert's photo great, well no not great but I don't believe he
said it was. But for what it is, a capture of an event, it is a good
photo. Note the highlights are not blown out, it is in focus, it is
well framed.

Those "press here to take photo" buttons really do it all!

Colin D wrote:

Right on, Amen to that (apart from the typo's but I think passion got in
the way there).

Colin D.

I am the champ at typo's nobody can do more in a sentence then me. It
is good things that I am good at what I do and people (the ones I do
work for) are willing to ignore a rather large number of them.

Scott

Annika1980 wrote:

Why do you assume that digital photographers just fire haphazardly
without planning or forethought? All my lenses can be focuses
manually,

They CAN be focussed manually. It's just that the focussing screens of
DSLRs are unsuitable for accurate manual focussing.

if that's your thing. Your style of shooting doesn't have to change
when you switch to digital, but of course it will.

Because (current) digital cameras aren't optimised for manual shooting.
Again, they CAN be used manually, but not comfortably. (Depth of field
scale, anyone?) It's a matter of which tool fits the hand.

Photography is photography.
Digital simply makes it easier to get what you want.

I'm not arguing against "Fast" or Easy" - those are digital perogatives
- but digital still doesn't offer many things that film does.

And now it makes it possible to get better quality as well.

If you don't know what you're doing...


Btw, I saw an old guy driving a 60-year old Ford and I thought of you.
As I blew past him.

Let me guess: He was enjoying his drive and the landscape, while you were
raging along with one hand on the horn and your cell phone in the other...

In article .com,
says...
1) My ****flex has the brightest and most ACCURATE focussing screen I've
ever seen.

Does it allow you to see the pics after you take them?

2) ALL my lenses have depth-of-field scales (and I use them).

You probably use a handheld light meter, too. If not, wanna buy mine?
The lenses I use on my DSLR can also be used on my Fabulous EOS-1V.

3) Most of my film cameras are highly reliable and I am sure that I will
still be using them in 10 years (yes, film will still be available), try
saying that about any digital camera.

I don't see why a digital camera won't work in 10 years.

4) With all my cameras, I can instantly change any of my exposure
settings, without going through menus and Ctrl-Alt-Del type button
combinations.

So can I. Of course I can also change ISO with the touch of a button
and I don't need to load different film when the light source changes.
And I can get gobs of photos on one "roll."

5) I can use my Zeiss Distagon 18mm with full 100° coverage.

Big whoop. I can use my 5x Macro lens on mine. I can also choose
focal lengths from 10mm to 1200mm.

Of course, digital has many other advantages over film which are well
known. Probably why film is dying.

No matter how many "advantages" digital may offer over shooting film,
you still haven't been a beneficiary of any creative vision using one.

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

Chris Loffredo wrote:
Scott W wrote:

Bret posted a link to a photo, and as is often the case a number of
film fanatics put it down because it was digital.

I'm a fanatic now? Wow!!!

I was just poking (friendly) fun at Bret's "photo of the day"; actually
I was responding to someone else's "boring" comment. How viscious!!!


So was Bert's photo great, well no not great but I don't believe he
said it was. But for what it is, a capture of an event, it is a good
photo. Note the highlights are not blown out, it is in focus, it is
well framed.

Those "press here to take photo" buttons really do it all!

Just what differences between a 20D and a film SLR do you believe
exist?

I notice that he shot in Aperture priority mode and use and EV
compensation of -1/3 stop. The shot is wide angle and at infinity, I
am sure there is a great need for careful manual focus for that shot.
How would you have taken the shot using your film camera?

Scott

DD wrote:
In article .com,
says...

1) My ****flex has the brightest and most ACCURATE focussing screen I've
ever seen.

Does it allow you to see the pics after you take them?

Confess, you always really wanted a Polaroid.

2) ALL my lenses have depth-of-field scales (and I use them).

You probably use a handheld light meter, too. If not, wanna buy mine?
The lenses I use on my DSLR can also be used on my Fabulous EOS-1V.

Actually, I do use a hand-held meter for really tricky lighting
situations. How uncool, eh?
BTW - My lenses can EAT your toy lenses!
; )

3) Most of my film cameras are highly reliable and I am sure that I will
still be using them in 10 years (yes, film will still be available), try
saying that about any digital camera.

I don't see why a digital camera won't work in 10 years.

Becuse one of it's electronic components has failed and it isn't worth
repairing it?

4) With all my cameras, I can instantly change any of my exposure
settings, without going through menus and Ctrl-Alt-Del type button
combinations.

So can I. Of course I can also change ISO with the touch of a button
and I don't need to load different film when the light source changes.
And I can get gobs of photos on one "roll."

I rarely need to take "gobs" of photos: I usually don't point at a subject
and hold the PHTTP (press here to take picture) button down for several
seconds..

5) I can use my Zeiss Distagon 18mm with full 100° coverage.

Big whoop. I can use my 5x Macro lens on mine. I can also choose
focal lengths from 10mm to 1200mm.

Quantity over quality again (though I have the same coverage available)?