Things have changed.

I was thinking today as I browsed through the posts. Seems like the
digital/film wars are finally over. Not that long ago, there would be
film fanatics who would post in the group and argue how digital was no
good, or at least not as good as film. Don't see those any more, at last!

I must say I still use my film camera, but less and less now. So I felt
there was a place for both, but hated to see valuable resources wasted
on those stupid wars.

Don Stauffer wrote

I was thinking today as I browsed through the posts. Seems like
the digital/film wars are finally over.

For most of us 6-8 Mpixels is close enough to 35 mm quality to end the
'war'.

Not that long ago, there would be film fanatics who would
post in the group and argue how digital was no good, or at
least not as good as film. Don't see those any more, at last

Post this on rec.photo.medium-format or r.p.large-format to re-hash
those same arguments

"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...

I was thinking today as I browsed through the posts. Seems like the
digital/film wars are finally over. Not that long ago, there would be
film fanatics who would post in the group and argue how digital was no
good, or at least not as good as film. Don't see those any more, at last!

I must say I still use my film camera, but less and less now. So I felt
there was a place for both, but hated to see valuable resources wasted on
those stupid wars.

Well, nobody likes to see too much quietness, so a jerk from Nokia says that
in a few years their camera phones will cause the demise of MP3 players and
soon afterwards video camcorders. Nokia it seems is the largest manufacturer
of cameras in the world. I guess it doesn't matter whether they're good or
not as long as they're considered cameras. If that's the case Fisher-Price
could easily take first place if they wanted to.
mark_

In article , Don Stauffer
wrote:

Not that long ago, there would be
film fanatics who would post in the group and argue how digital was no
good, or at least not as good as film.

Now if the digital users would post here instead of in the film-camera
newsgroups, all would be fine and dandy.

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.

Nah, we're all just too damned tired of talking about it. Or maybe the
posters who used to argue to infinity have finally realized that digital is
just a new tool, and can coexist alongside film. I shoot both, depending on
what type of result I want. No big deal.

"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...

I was thinking today as I browsed through the posts. Seems like the
digital/film wars are finally over. Not that long ago, there would be
film fanatics who would post in the group and argue how digital was no
good, or at least not as good as film. Don't see those any more, at last!

I must say I still use my film camera, but less and less now. So I felt
there was a place for both, but hated to see valuable resources wasted on
those stupid wars.

"Kinon O'Cann" wrote in message
...
Nah, we're all just too damned tired of talking about it. Or maybe the
posters who used to argue to infinity have finally realized that digital
is just a new tool, and can coexist alongside film. I shoot both,
depending on what type of result I want. No big deal.

Your post is too sensible. You should be banned! Just kidding.

I have 45+ years of experience with photography and totally agree with you.
I am now 100% digital, by the way.

Also, my wife and I enjoy art shows and I always peruse the photography
booths. Those guys are still stuck with medium format and scanning and
Photoshopping and high-quality printing (their stuff is often awesome, by
the way). When digital advancement permits it, they will throw their film
cameras away to eliminate the scanning. I hope I live long enough to see
that happen because it is not going to happen all that soon.

Film has a few miles left.

Just my opinion.

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
...
When digital advancement permits it, they will throw their film
cameras away to eliminate the scanning. I hope I live long enough to see
that happen because it is not going to happen all that soon.

Film has a few miles left.

Just my opinion.

It already happened (digital back) but too costly to own one.

Don Stauffer writes:

I was thinking today as I browsed through the posts. Seems like the
digital/film wars are finally over. Not that long ago, there would be
film fanatics who would post in the group and argue how digital was no
good, or at least not as good as film. Don't see those any more, at
last!

I must say I still use my film camera, but less and less now. So I
felt there was a place for both, but hated to see valuable resources
wasted on those stupid wars.

I was out shooting with a Fujica GS645 MF rangefinder camera today --
but mostly for retro fun, and to test the camera before selling it
(thinking seriously about doing so). First film this year for me.

Although I *scanned* some film just last night. Film from 1981.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

David J Taylor wrote:
Don Stauffer wrote:

I was thinking today as I browsed through the posts. Seems like the
digital/film wars are finally over. Not that long ago, there would be
film fanatics who would post in the group and argue how digital was no
good, or at least not as good as film. Don't see those any more, at
last!
I must say I still use my film camera, but less and less now. So I
felt there was a place for both, but hated to see valuable resources
wasted on those stupid wars.


Remember to take the batteries out before you finally put the film camera
away.

David


Oh, I still use it regularly, so will probably keep them in. Just
don't use it as regularly as I did before. It is not autofocus, so the
battery lasts a long time anyway.