Film is back, says NYT

[DREW WILEY]

Other than a few times when I forgot to reverse a darkslide and ended up with a double exposure,
I doubt that I've made an exposure error even .001% of the time in the past half century, regardless
of format. Heck, I dropped my light meter in a snowmelt creek a couple summers back, and even the
chromes I took on that trip were spot on, based simply on memory of analogous exposure situations.
But given the fact that most the texting generation will probably be unable to spell any word over
three letters long or be able to comprehend 10% of the Readers Digest Condensed Dictionary, the
disposable cardboard film camera will probably be impossible to comprehend. Nothing works anymore
unless you have 379 programs you have to learn to turn off before you can take a picture.

[David Brown]

In my not so humble opinion, this was a poor article and did the film community no favors. YMMV

[vpwphoto]

Dang... all those light streaks and such I never wrestled with in the 20 years I used film.

[CGW]

Too many people around the NYT know film--and know better--to have let this goofy piece get published. Bizarre, especially when compared to this CNN piece from last year:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/08/20/living...yet/index.html

[Dan Henderson]

My first thought was, "film is back? I didn't know it had left." After reading the article I agree with David. It is poorly written. Lots of "hip" jargon: "part with a few bills," "invest a significant amount of time — and coin —..." Journalism isn't what it used to be.

[Hatchetman]

I'm not defending it, but to give it some context, this is a regular weekly column devoted to new "tech" things....ie desktop speakers, internet radios, stuff like that.

[DBP]

Incompetent jorurnalism plain and simple. A decent 110 camera can beat any camera phone made, and 35mm is so far ahead it isn't worth comparing. As for usability, things don't get much easier to use than the Stylus Epic, which was also pretty cheap at $79 when discontinued. So the only valid complaints on the list were the limited number of shots and the inconvenience of having to get processing. The latter seemed an odd coupling with the amount of space devoted to instant film.

[rthomas]

I guess I'm cool again. Is it okay if I don't have any light leaks?

[Poisson Du Jour]

Film is back?
Oh wooooow. I think the imperfections are in the writing craft of journalism.

[waynecrider]

This person needs to be clued in. Go to

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...ham/index.html

and write her an email. My newer film bodies are older then her.