Does 35mm have to be film?

Recently, I've noticed a few posts telling the digital guys to go elsewhere.
I'm just wondering if a 35mm full-frame sensor qualifies for this group, or
does it have to be film?

Not wanting to open up another can of worms, but I'm curious...

Take Care,
Dudley

Dudley Hanks wrote:
Recently, I've noticed a few posts telling the digital guys to go elsewhere.
I'm just wondering if a 35mm full-frame sensor qualifies for this group, or
does it have to be film?

Not wanting to open up another can of worms, but I'm curious...

Take Care,
Dudley



The rather odd thing about Usenet is that it is uncontrolled.

A group needs to have a documented goal. It's called the "Charter". Once
the groups actually exists, the charter is forgotten and anyway, nothing
it contains any legal meaning or even any obligation to keep the group
faithful to it's charter.

This group is a good example of how a group originally set up as one
thing had to change the content of itself to stay alive. Digital cameras
have taken over the non-professional world to such a degree even Kodak
are left floundering as they try to re-invent themselves.

Just ignore those who would have us live in the past and keep
contributing whatever it is you wish to post. You are after all a
photographer, more than can be said for those trying to bury the group
in a historical black home.

JH

"Jurgen" wrote in message
...
Dudley Hanks wrote:
Recently, I've noticed a few posts telling the digital guys to go
elsewhere. I'm just wondering if a 35mm full-frame sensor qualifies for
this group, or does it have to be film?

Not wanting to open up another can of worms, but I'm curious...

Take Care,
Dudley



The rather odd thing about Usenet is that it is uncontrolled.

A group needs to have a documented goal. It's called the "Charter". Once
the groups actually exists, the charter is forgotten and anyway, nothing
it contains any legal meaning or even any obligation to keep the group
faithful to it's charter.

This group is a good example of how a group originally set up as one thing
had to change the content of itself to stay alive. Digital cameras have
taken over the non-professional world to such a degree even Kodak are left
floundering as they try to re-invent themselves.

Just ignore those who would have us live in the past and keep contributing
whatever it is you wish to post. You are after all a photographer, more
than can be said for those trying to bury the group in a historical black
home.

JH

where is the link to your "Charter" page Douggie ??

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg

On 10/19/2008 6:25 PM Dudley Hanks spake thus:

Recently, I've noticed a few posts telling the digital guys to go elsewhere.
I'm just wondering if a 35mm full-frame sensor qualifies for this group, or
does it have to be film?

Not wanting to open up another can of worms, but I'm curious...

Already open, don't worry.

No, digital stuff does *not* qualify for this group, for the simple
reason that there already exist other newsgroups specifically set up for
digital cameras (for instance, rec.photo.digital.slr for posts about
DSLRs, which are the lion's share of digital posts here).

Please use r.p.d.slr for its intended purpose. (There are other
r.p.digital... groups as well.)


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

Helen wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:57 pm, Helen wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:49 pm, Jurgen wrote:

"Digital cameras have taken over the non-professional world..."

Digial cameras are a reality in the professional world as well.

Sorry about the typo, I meant DIGITAL.

My company still uses film for most of their fashion magazines.

They clearly don't need the same quality in the rags my articles appear in.

All I get is lowly Pentax P&S digital to fill in when there's no shooter
to accompany me! - most of the time.

JH

Helen wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:57 pm, Helen wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:49 pm, Jurgen wrote:

"Digital cameras have taken over the non-professional world..."

Digial cameras are a reality in the professional world as well.

Sorry about the typo, I meant DIGITAL.

I wooden apoligize Helen. Aftah awl, 'Jurgen/Juegen' (Douglas
MacDonald) is a mahster of alturnutiv speling. It's worth noting that
Douglas has assumed the new sockpuppet 'Jurgen (juegen_haus (at)
ezilon.com)' and should not be confused with Jurgen Exner, who regularly
posts here also.


As for the question, the original charter clearly states the group is
for discussion of 35mm equipment, including lenses and accessories.

So any camera systems that use 35mm lenses and accessories would have to
be on-topic, unless you have some sort of comprehension issue. It is
interesting to note that the people complaining are not exactly what you
would call major contributors, and if the posts were restricted to film
bodies only, then clearly this group would effectively be already dead.

To David - feel free to point at all the last truly ontopic posts.

And here's the charter AGAIN, with added capitalisation..
---
This group is for the discussion of ALL ASPECTS of 35mm camera
EQUIPMENT. This includes 35mm SLR camera bodies and LENSES, 35mm
point-and-shoot cameras, 35mm rangefinder cameras, 35mm scale focus
cameras and 35mm half-frame cameras.
---
Notes:
- 'film' is not mentioned
- most digital SLRs are based upon the 35mm format
- DSLRs are effectively replacing 35mm film SLRs
- DSLRs use 35mm lenses, flashguns, filters, ...
- many folk here have replaced their film SLR's with digital but still
use the 'old' accessories.

It's not rocket science.

"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
Helen wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:57 pm, Helen wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:49 pm, Jurgen wrote:

"Digital cameras have taken over the non-professional world..."

Digial cameras are a reality in the professional world as well.

Sorry about the typo, I meant DIGITAL.

I wooden apoligize Helen. Aftah awl, 'Jurgen/Juegen' (Douglas MacDonald)
is a mahster of alturnutiv speling. It's worth noting that Douglas has
assumed the new sockpuppet 'Jurgen (juegen_haus (at) ezilon.com)' and
should not be confused with Jurgen Exner, who regularly posts here also.


As for the question, the original charter clearly states the group is for
discussion of 35mm equipment, including lenses and accessories.

So any camera systems that use 35mm lenses and accessories would have to
be on-topic, unless you have some sort of comprehension issue. It is
interesting to note that the people complaining are not exactly what you
would call major contributors, and if the posts were restricted to film
bodies only, then clearly this group would effectively be already dead.

To David - feel free to point at all the last truly ontopic posts.

And here's the charter AGAIN, with added capitalisation..
---
This group is for the discussion of ALL ASPECTS of 35mm camera EQUIPMENT.
This includes 35mm SLR camera bodies and LENSES, 35mm point-and-shoot
cameras, 35mm rangefinder cameras, 35mm scale focus cameras and 35mm
half-frame cameras.
---
Notes:
- 'film' is not mentioned
- most digital SLRs are based upon the 35mm format
- DSLRs are effectively replacing 35mm film SLRs
- DSLRs use 35mm lenses, flashguns, filters, ...
- many folk here have replaced their film SLR's with digital but still use
the 'old' accessories.

It's not rocket science.

That's basically the way I read the Charter, but I thought maybe I was
missing something.

Thanks,
Dudley

On 10/19/2008 11:00 PM Dudley Hanks spake thus:

"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...

Helen wrote:

On Oct 19, 9:57 pm, Helen wrote:

On Oct 19, 9:49 pm, Jurgen wrote:

"Digital cameras have taken over the non-professional world..."

Digial cameras are a reality in the professional world as well.

Sorry about the typo, I meant DIGITAL.

And here's the charter AGAIN, with added capitalisation..
---
This group is for the discussion of ALL ASPECTS of 35mm camera EQUIPMENT.
This includes 35mm SLR camera bodies and LENSES, 35mm point-and-shoot
cameras, 35mm rangefinder cameras, 35mm scale focus cameras and 35mm
half-frame cameras.
---
Notes:
- 'film' is not mentioned
- most digital SLRs are based upon the 35mm format
- DSLRs are effectively replacing 35mm film SLRs
- DSLRs use 35mm lenses, flashguns, filters, ...
- many folk here have replaced their film SLR's with digital but still use
the 'old' accessories.

It's not rocket science.

That's basically the way I read the Charter, but I thought maybe I was
missing something.

Yes, you missed something significant: the charter doesn't mention film
because at the time it was written (more than a decade ago), it was
implicitly assumed that "35mm camera" meant a 35mm *film* camera. Think
back to those dim days of long ago: what few digital cameras there were
were either not anywhere close to the quality of film, or damned
expensive, and it was not at all clear that digital would replace film
to the extent that it has today. So the intent of the charter-writers
can be assumed to be film.

Add to that the fact that a much more appropriate group exists for
discussion of DSLRs (which are just about the *only* digital cameras
discussed here): rec.photo.digital.slr. Custom-made for them, in fact.
Can you think of any good reason that such discussions should *not* be
posted there? If so, I'd like to hear it.


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

"Jurgen" wrote in message
...
Helen wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:57 pm, Helen wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:49 pm, Jurgen wrote:

"Digital cameras have taken over the non-professional world..."

Digial cameras are a reality in the professional world as well.

Sorry about the typo, I meant DIGITAL.

My company still uses film for most of their fashion magazines.

They clearly don't need the same quality in the rags my articles appear
in.

All I get is lowly Pentax P&S digital to fill in when there's no shooter
to accompany me! - most of the time.

JH

weren't you living with your parents last week Jurgen ??
how can you now afford a company that produces fashion magazines??
hoist with your own petar (again)

You seem to be telling porkies again Doug, drop the pretence, we ALL know
Jurgen is just another sock of the Tangalooma Truth Abuser, AKA: Douglas
MacDonald, AKA: far to many sock to mention.
--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg

David Nebenzahl wrote:
the charter doesn't mention film
because at the time it was written (more than a decade ago), it was
implicitly assumed that "35mm camera" meant a 35mm *film* camera.

David, as has been tediously explained to you *many* times before, you
cannot be 'implicit' unless you accept others being equally and
*oppositely* 'implicit'.

The word ISN'T there. Get over it, and stop implicitly inserting it.

Do you really think that just because digital cameras were in their
infancy, no-one guessed they might actually become so good that they
would USE the 35mm format? And why, for heaven's sake, do you think the
charter writers would 'implicitly' not want to discuss relevant
developments and DIRECTLY competing equipment that used the same 35mm
equipment?

Add to that the fact that a much more appropriate group exists for
discussion of DSLRs (which are just about the *only* digital cameras
discussed here): rec.photo.digital.slr

It is empty, unused and unlisted by the vast majority of usenet
providers. Now why is that, do you think, David?

I'll tell you - the need isn't there. And why is that? All sensible
folk (a large number of whom were 35mm film SLR users), have simply
continued their discussions here as they have upgraded - after all, the
equipment is basically the same but with a new medium occupying that
35mm imaging area..

Again, David - count the truly ontopic posts here, and also show us
*yours*. You seem to be avoiding that rather important point.

Can you think of any good reason that such discussions should *not* be
posted there? If so, I'd like to hear it.
Apart from the above, go to any major usenet provider and see how you
get on signing up for that group, David. F'rinstance, even if you
malign GGroups, I think you would concede it has a pretty comprehensive
set of usenet groups. Is rec.photo.digital.slr available?
NO.

At Motzarella?
NO.

At Giganews?
NO.

So, clearly, David hasn't done any homework and just makes this up as he
goes along... (Yes, I know there is an active group available, but
David is the one who keeps bringing up the wrong one..)

And before anyone complains, I won't respond further to the troll.