Switch to English Language Passer en langue franÁaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,270   Posts: 1,660,688   Online: 1041
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 46
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    544
    "Letís start with the cons. Analog cameras require a little more precision to operate than digital ones. It can take some time to figure out how they work and to learn how to reload them without dropping them on the sidewalk. The film itself is fairly delicate and often needs to be refrigerated and shielded from the sun."

    "And when the prints show up, there can be wild variations in color and the sort of unpredictability that turns a photo into something that seems like a unique piece of art."
    The author's readers seem to be ham-fisted, camera-dropping nincompoops. And as everyone knows, if you drop film on the "sidewalk", it breaks and all the pictures will fall out!

    Cheers,
    kevs
    testing...

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,066
    Images
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by DBP View Post
    Incompetent jorurnalism plain and simple. A decent 110 camera can beat any camera phone made
    Except, of course, that the majority of 110 cameras were not "decent". They were in fact "crap". I remember this facet of using them clearly. Even as a kid I could not be fooled. As soon as I could get my hands on something better, the 110 was history.

    Yes, it's kind of a dumb article--a young tech writer writing about some lomo stuff for for her audience. Yes, film was finicky and difficult, which is why it's hard to believe that billions of people used it.
    "People get bumped off." -- Weegee

  3. #23
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,641
    Images
    221
    Any article that mentions film, without "is dead" attached, is a good thing, regardless of whether it is poorly written, or focused on a small subset of film use.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Portland - Oregon
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    91
    Images
    12
    "Techno junkies" should be outlawed from writing articles dealing with any form of art. They have no clue and no feel for the medium. I have seen this kind of thing in the local paper here and Iím surprised I have any hair left! I love my "seemingly archaic art Ö" since it requires craft and vision which these kinds of people know nothing about.

  5. #25
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,070
    Most any name brand auto loading point and shoot with DX coding and AF, in combination with a roll of Tri-X is the most fool proof combo you can get. I used to carry prints around in a portfolio just to show people that its not all lomo, film produces high quality and detailed images.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,696
    Images
    15
    Well, no camera is entirely "fool proof". People still manage to stick their finger in front of the lens just as the shutter trips, or obscure the flash of Aunt Grettel managing a rare smile with the sun beaming down behind her.

  7. #27
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,070
    Indeed I stand corrected, almost fool proof haha.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Enroute
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by DBP View Post
    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.
    I mean no disrespect, but I am not in agreement with this.

    I did a show last year of photos from my iPhone 4, not even the 4S, in Hipstamatic that were printed in 10" x 10" and two of them at 30" x 30", all looked great, sold enough on the opening night to pay for 15 new iPhones. I can tell you with full confidence that even an ASA 100 film shot in 110 would not begin to compete with the above.

    I'm sorry but it is this kind of statement that really makes the non-film using community laugh, does us no good...at all.

    As for the article, meh, I have read better in the NYT, and I shoot for them several times a year...
    "I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~

  9. #29
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,070
    I cant believe people buy hipsmatic prints lol. But yes cell phone quality is decent in bright light. My previous nokia n72 had an AF zeiss lens with an actual xenon flash tube. It took amazing 5mp photos in the day, and the flash was and still is leagues ahead of the LEDs now. No funky inphone image editors back then either.

    But the cell phone is as I view it a last resort, I've probably taken only 75 or so shots with my iPhone 4 these last two years ive had it.

    I'm hoping this phase of photography ebbs soon. too much lomo for my taste not everything requires over saturation and vignettes.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    3,500
    I've got a good use for cell phone cameras. You see, just below the platform of my big Ries wooden
    tripod there a little hook where you can hang a mesh bag. Sometimes even with an 8x10 camera there's too much wind for a steady shot. So you take a bunch of rocks or cell phones or whatever
    and throw them in that little mesh bag to add extra weight and stability. Now that's technology!

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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