Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,692   Posts: 1,482,414   Online: 688
      
Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 123456789101115 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 152
  1. #41
    timbo10ca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Winnipeg, MB Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    543
    Images
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by FrankB View Post
    Agreed.



    I'm not going to get into the whole A vs. D thing for the millionth time on APUG, but I'd dispute most of the above. D has some advantages but these are frequently over-hyped. A also has advantages and these are often discounted or ignored.
    I made this statement sort of tongue-in-cheek (although it still rings somewhat true to many ears, mine included). The thought of a film vs digital debate didn't even enter my mind, and I obviously don't want to degenerate to that level. Nonetheless, digital may be over-hyped, but it's a pretty loud voice screaming in the ear of the masses. I commend any ideas such as yours to raise the analog voice as much as we can. Unfortunately, I'm a natural pessimist- I see these little oases of public information as small drops in a large ocean of market- driven digital evolution. In this day and age, there are so many "save the (insert animal, vegetable or mineral here)" causes, you have to start one-upping to get anything done. I wore a yellow wrist band with pride. Now there's a frigging color for every cause out there. Our society is not only getting lazy, but it's getting deaf as well. The obvious is the need to have the TV louder, noise pollution, etc. It's the marketing noise that film is struggling against. To reach the consumer, analog photography has to be loud as well. It has to be more noticeable on a grander scale. I commend what Ilford and Fuji (and others) are doing, but I don't see them running any large film marketing ventures. These are the types of loud voices we need. Marketing to film users is preaching to the choir.

    On another note- When I've mentioned APUG to other people I know who have an interest in photography I've explained that it's strictly for film- based stuff, but has great information and they should check it out. I've followed up with telling them that if they are going to post something, even the word "digital" is dirty here, often being referred to as "d-shit-al" or just "D" (personally, I think this is silly- it's out there people, no need to be an ostrich about it). The response is usually a scoff. I figure it's better to fore-warn them, than to have them flamed up the wazoo by making this faux pas and then writing APUG off forever (bad press travels 10 times faster than good too). The religious fervour held by some (although respectable) isn't necessarily helping our cause in a public forum. Yes, there is a mission statement that people read when first coming here, but the way it is upheld can be quite heavy-handed and unsavory. Public image goes a long way.
    If only we could pull out our brains and use only our eyes. P. Picasso

    http://www.timbowlesphotography.com

  2. #42
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,054
    Images
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by timbo10ca View Post
    I've followed up with telling them that if they are going to post something, even the word "digital" is dirty here, often being referred to as "d-shit-al" or just "D" (personally, I think this is silly- it's out there people, no need to be an ostrich about it). The response is usually a scoff. I figure it's better to fore-warn them, than to have them flamed up the wazoo by making this faux pas and then writing APUG off forever (bad press travels 10 times faster than good too). The religious fervour held by some (although respectable) isn't necessarily helping our cause in a public forum. Yes, there is a mission statement that people read when first coming here, but the way it is upheld can be quite heavy-handed and unsavory. Public image goes a long way.
    Actually, the dirty little secret here is that there are a lot of 'puggers who own and use digicams and others who use film but print digitally. The message is not that digital is 'evil', but that there are lots of sites to discuss it other than apug. It doesn't have to be hostile...just accurate.
    John Voss

    My Blog

  3. #43
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    Actually, the reason people tend not to use the "d" word around here is to prevent APUG from showing up on web searches for information about the photography that dare not speak its name on APUG. It keeps the off topic discussion down.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    Actually, the reason people tend not to use the "d" word around here is to prevent APUG from showing up on web searches for information about the photography that dare not speak its name on APUG. It keeps the off topic discussion down.
    Okay I will not use the "d" word.

    I've been following the thread and developed a question to myself, which is the practicality of the future photography. Oboviously this thread is geared more toward people interested in LF gears, sheet film type, and wet plates, and so on, right? Whatever these recording formats are, they tend to look like the sets with heavy and steady tripods. The real big stuff.

    However, I'm one of the shooters who never use a tripod because my format doesn't go beyond MF size, and I do hand-held street-candid photography and videography to some extent. So, for me to actually continue practicing what I've been practicing is, sadly to start using more of the electronic non-film cameras that weigh about the same as 35mm and MF sets if 35mm and MF rolls disappear.

    For printing, I plan to wet my darkroom, so as long as some kind of traditional photographic paper is available, I can keep using it. No problem. But the camera format(s) will definitely be the issue along the way.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    So, my ultimate question is, is there a way to make 35mm roll film (with decent coating) at home? Where do I get the materials? How do I make sprocket holes?

  6. #46
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,710
    Images
    65
    No, there is no way to make perfed film at home. Someone would have to build a machine to do it. Coating quality and other factors would also tend to degrade results too much.

    PE

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    98
    Images
    2
    Aristotelis Grammatikakis:
    What you said!
    I agree that we need to leave it to future generations to preserve analog processes. Those that have value will withstand the test of time.
    It is easier to gain enlightenment than to explain enlightenment.
    Supreme Master Ching Hai

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    No, there is no way to make perfed film at home. Someone would have to build a machine to do it. Coating quality and other factors would also tend to degrade results too much.

    PE
    So, basically you're saying we will not go beyond the current state of dependence, our manufacturer-dependent attitude for that type of film.

    I have a feeling my future camera would be a Sony or Panasonic...

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Is there any way to make a 35mm-roll-fim-producing machine to keep running without giving too much hope to the remaining manufacturers? If a machine is too costly to buy, I'm sure it is), can we form a group and fund it, more in a sense, like some people build windmills in their eco-friendly community, generate electoricity, use some of it, and sell the rest to the big energy companies?

    The point is to reverse our commercial manufacturer-dependent attitude and start doing the work by outselves first, fulfill our needs, and have the manufactuers and sellers buy the leftovers from us, so they can still do the business, too, but without facing and risking too much of the potential loss.

  10. #50
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by timbo10ca View Post
    Somebody mentioned earlier- some people just aren't interested in photography. I'll take that a little further, by adding the fact that as a society we are getting lazier and lazier. Digital photography is great! It's fast (instant feedback), cheap (no more film or processing to pay for), and easy (take a hundred pictures, figure out what you're doing wrong, and correct it if you're so inclined). The learning curve is far less steep that for film. ....
    I think we are lazy when we argue like this. The fact of the matter is that the growth of digital photography is a direct result of the universality of PCs. Once a society crosses the threshhold and PC's become prevelant it is only a matter of course that more and more uses will become "digitized" to take advantage of that infrastructure.

    In fact, to master Photoshop requires a hell of a lot of effort. Effort you and I may not want to undertake - but someone who does so is certainly not "lazy".

    I actually took a course in PS last year taught by someone who works in the NYC advertising biz. She dazzled me with her ability to zoom into pics and adjust individual pixels and then zoom out and work of various areas of an image rapidly employing a vast array of tools available to her.

    She was a frenzy of knowledgable activity and certainly not LAZY!

    I prefer film photography over digital. But I think it is cavalierly out-of-touch to argue that an accomplished digital photographer/processor is LAZY!

    It's one thing to favor our "art" over theirs - but to denegrate accomplished people because they have a different approach is unnecessary.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin