Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,565   Posts: 1,545,319   Online: 891
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 57
  1. #41
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Dude you sure get around, don't you? The thing you keep missing about your "audience" here is that they don't really care about how cheap digital is. Why do you insist on continually trying to convince APUG members of this? You're simply mistaken if you believe that the majority of people on this site want or even believe themselves that film is a mass-market consumer player.
    Dude.

    I was responding to one person who opined about some mass market equivalency. You're the one on the soapbox.

    And you get around more than I do, as one can conveniently see from your posts

    Also, you're seriously ignoring one obvious aspect about the "shoebox phenomenon": that in the wake of bad treatment or storage, by and large most still have some semblance of their images - even if said images have suffered over the years. Anybody sane will take a degraded but still perceivable analog image over a stream of completely lost or unreadable binary.
    Why would binary be unreadable? There are standardized ISO formats, as film is a ISO format. Binary is math and unless you encrypt, the primer is algebra. Careful migration is/was a factor for celluloid as it is for digital. There's a lot of people working on it in a variety of ways.

    But..oops! now you are engaging in the vs. debate. It's the "completely lost" hyperbole the I take issue with. That is hardly a common phenomenon. Carelessness in analog is as damaging in digital. It's more human behaviour than inherent in the medium.

    The deeper issue is the treatment or cultural valuation of the photograph as a visual medium rather than the actual medium of the photograph. Lowering barrier to entry so low that images are now almost ephemeral and costless has resulted in the "no limits" effect: even more crap that's given less attention to than it ever was before.
    I totally agree. So archiving a lot of this stuff that no one will ever look agains is either not worth the social or economic investment, or a clever huckster trick to sell through fear.

    I would argue that the 1-hour photo did a huge amount to over-click in photography regardless of medium. The problem still existed, and the issue for film is now one of having difficulty downsizing once having thrived on the establishment of the scale.

    However, film supporters need to care about the economy of digital because that is the benchmark. Film dies if it gets too expensive relative to digital. That's going to be a critical measure in the salvage of Kodak's emulsions, which is the topic of the thread.

    I like the blue sky,thinking, Gibson's analogy. I'm not sure it translates to the mass production of film, because guitars never reached that size market nor are produced through such capital intensive industrial processes, but hypothetically the premise is sound as to what might happen with Kodak.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximusM3 View Post
    True...but it can be a one time expense, for life. I still have my 1953 Tele that I bought back in the late '70s and it sounds better than it did when new. Of course, I couldn't afford one today, but film, paper, chemicals, time, various darkroom equipment are an ongoing expense. I remember going to my father for my first guitar and amp when I was 14 and it was hard work to get him to splurge. I can just imagine the scene if I had to go to him every time I needed more film, and darkroom supplies
    Max, I'd love to see pictures of your Tele if you have them up anywhere. 1950-1954 Teles are the best.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    750
    @Zsas:

    They may not have their photos on facebook, if SOPA is passed here in the states. Also the Internet is so fluid that if your photos are all stored on <insert site here> and the business that is running it goes out of business, bye bye photos! IMHO it's better to have control of your backups yourself. I realize that most people don't back up their photos, and if they don't have them stored on FB or flickr or somewhere, they will be lost.

    Of course, analog photos can be lost in a house fire, so that risk is there for analog photos too.

    ME Super

  4. #44
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    All that is fine and well but cloud, FB, Flikr is going to be the 99% method. You dont have to try to sell me about storage (I have two cloud backups of my PC and a externalHD), but I work in IT, everyone else today (non-Apug'r) just uploads and forgets about it. I doubt if FB, Flikr or the cloud services will find themselves obsolete in 10, 20 years or their jpeg's will magically be unable to be seen, the archive-ability of analog photos is not what I think are it's selling point, its its nature that we really all love and care about. My wife scrap books using here dslr and prints at the pharmacy all her good prints, in my view we are on the same footing, if the house goes up she still wins as her work is backed up thrice and I am up a river, I aint making copies of my negs, ain't worth it, if my negs/prints disappear I just keep shooting
    Andy

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    750
    I also work in IT and have had to restore a system more than once from backups (thank goodness for those!) due to failed hard drive. We may be getting a little off-topic here though. My point is that Facebook, flickr, and the like are not the end-all be-all backup solutions for photos that we analog folk (or even us IT people) would like to see. If Kodak came up with a good quality inexpensive scanning solution (12+ MP from 35mm anyone?) for us film consumers that didn't use proprietary file formats (like the photo CD) for a few bucks a roll at time of developing, and do it along the lines of the "You push the button we do the rest" we would eat it up the way we do film. And for the masses, a decent photo storage site (like flickr) where users could store and share their photos for about $25 USD a year, many people would bite. I would, if only so I could have off-site storage for the non-traditional capture photos I take in addition to the film ones.

    Me personally, I'd like to see Kodak (or at least their film division in whatever form it ends up as) keep and expand their E-6 film offerings, and offer the aforementioned good quality scanning service. Unfortunately that probably won't happen.

    ME Super

  6. #46
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Amen! With you all the way!
    Andy

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,286
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Lowering barrier to entry so low that images are now almost ephemeral and costless has resulted in the "no limits" effect: even more crap that's given less attention to than it ever was before.
    Oh I wish. I had to sit through a laptop slide show of a friend's niece's 3 month trip to somewhere. At 2 hours she she said "its almost over", and an hour and half later and 300 more slides of every snap she shot for 3 months, it ended just before I was about to put the shotgun in my mouth.

  8. #48
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
    Oh I wish. I had to sit through a laptop slide show of a friend's niece's 3 month trip to somewhere. At 2 hours she she said "its almost over", and an hour and half later and 300 more slides of every snap she shot for 3 months, it ended just before I was about to put the shotgun in my mouth.
    Right. Your response is that you devalued the memory of the experience and, I assume, a lot of the photographs just based on sheer quantity. Because of the ease and lack of cost to make them, the producers of the images just pump them out and the consumers of them fall asleep by 20 images in - because already 20 images is too much.

    That's the funny part though, editing (not screwing around in Photoshop, but selection) is so incredibly important to how people react to the images.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    750
    Wayne
    Oh I wish. I had to sit through a laptop slide show of a friend's niece's 3 month trip to somewhere. At 2 hours she she said "its almost over", and an hour and half later and 300 more slides of every snap she shot for 3 months, it ended just before I was about to put the shotgun in my mouth.
    clayne
    Right. Your response is that you devalued the memory of the experience and, I assume, a lot of the photographs just based on sheer quantity. Because of the ease and lack of cost to make them, the producers of the images just pump them out and the consumers of them fall asleep by 20 images in - because already 20 images is too much.
    I agree. About 3 years before my return to film, we took a trip to Walt Disney World with another family. We ended up coming home with about 1,000 digital pictures of the trip. It is nice to have them but not to go through them and show people every single one of them. Nowhere near all of them will end up in photo albums or shared with others. Only the best ones go in the albums or get uploaded to social media sites.

    Contrast the 1,000 pictures of the Disney trip with about 4 rolls of film shot on a trip to Yellowstone. A much higher percentage of the film shots were keepers. Its these pictures, of the trip to Yellowstone, that triggered my return to film. And not just film, slide film specifically.

    ME Super

  10. #50
    Danielle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    The deeper issue is the treatment or cultural valuation of the photograph as a visual medium rather than the actual medium of the photograph. Lowering barrier to entry so low that images are now almost ephemeral and costless has resulted in the "no limits" effect: even more crap that's given less attention to than it ever was before.


    Nope, I don't think the barrier was lowered... I think the bar was just cleanly dropped!
    All that really matters in the end is the image, not what your using to create it.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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