Christopher Walrath

Well. I'll start with the five sorts of photographers.

1. Anti-digital Photographer. 'If it ain't silver then it is an abomination and should be purged at the alters of AA, Weston and Bresson.'

2. Film Photographer. 'Well, I use film because it is what I have always used. Sure digital has its place in my workflow. However I prefer to use film.'

3. Non-specific Photographer. 'I have a Nikon N65 and a Nikon D40. I could be found with either raised to my eye on any particular day.'
'I use digital for my pro use and film for personal creativity.'

4. Digital Photographer. 'I used to shoot film and still do on occasion. However, I'm pretty much primarily shooting digital now.'

5. Anti-film Photographer. 'Get rid of your film camera, go buy a digital and get with the frickin' program already.'


And now, for the accosting.
I, as do we all, post on a number of forums and online communities. Being the acting or co- editor for Creative Image Maker Magazine, I was drumming up some interest in the re-release of the magazine in late November, both here on APUG and at other online photography communities that I take part in as well. On this one forum, we'll refer to it as MOC.COM, I was doing a three day count down, like 'only three days to go'. That kind of thing. Once the magazine was published online I started a new thread, this one to let people know it was new information, not just a rehash of 'it's coming', et al. I go back a couple of days later and I find a reply. It went something like this.

'I do not appreciate this fly-by-night member's spamming of his own site. I have visited it but it is a film photography website that is being spammed about here at a website that caters primarily to digital photographers. Two threads are unnecessary. I would recommend a couple of other magazines I like (he mentioned Lenswork and another, which I read myself). I'm sorry but I will not read this magazine anymore.'

. . .

OK. This, not digital photographer, but rather ANTI-FILM photographer, or rather, HACK!, up and got hisself up from out of his digital hole and came over to the itto-witty-bitty film forum section to bag on this idiot film pusher that he thought didn't have a clue.

BIG mistake.

My response. Something like . . . 'I apologize if I have offended you with my spamming. However, I have been a member here for over three years and have offered innumerable amounts of advice in various photographic topics. Most of it good, some perhaps not so. The magazine I am writing about can give good information to film and digital photographers alike, so long as you are no longer content to let your camera decide for you in 'P' mode and would like to know what Av, Tv and M are all about. And, just in case you didn't notice, I posted this in the MOC.COM 'TRADITIONAL FILM PHOTOGRAPHY' portion of the forum (MOC.COM's title, not mine) so that photographers like you who have no interest in film-based photography would not have to be bothered by these posts. That being said, go back to sleep. The government says its safe. Thanks. Chris'

Oh, brudduh. People.

Anyway, thank you for indulging me. Rant complete. Go back to sleep.

Thanks.
Chris