Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,524   Posts: 1,543,819   Online: 790
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,304
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    The thread title is a quote from "Photography: A Guardian Masterclass", an 82-page supplement with today's Guardian newspaper.

    There is are one or two other passing references to film, both of which imply its obsolescence. Slightly surprisingly, given the Guardian's demographic, even "lomography" isn't mentioned at all.

    I quite understand why they would choose to focus on digital, but It does nevertheless seem a shame.

    For those who don't read the Guardian, or who are not in the UK, and are interested, the text is available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi...hy-masterclass
    If you go to guardian.co.uk/photography-masterclass-competition I notice that the winning shot on the cover of their booklet was taken in 1981. A wonderful composition and a cracking shot byRob Kenyon.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    And as it is now free 'bigger roll of film' it happens much more than when it used to cost money.
    It still co$t$ money to store all the images that are captured.

  3. #23
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    The only difference now is that with digital you have a much bigger 'roll of film' to shoot.
    Actually not. A digital image is a virtual image. You can't see it or hold it in your hand. It only exists as an abstract collection of 1 and 0. If you want to actually see it or hold it in your hand it has to be converted to an analog image.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,027
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    Actually not. A digital image is a virtual image. You can't see it or hold it in your hand. It only exists as an abstract collection of 1 and 0. If you want to actually see it or hold it in your hand it has to be converted to an analog image.

    It may be "1's and 0's", but it doesn't simply exist in the 'either' - it must be stored on something physical. A memory card has some limited number of images that it can hold and is analogous to a roll of film - just as a roll of film must be 'processed' to see the images on it, so to must the images on a memory card be 'processed' to see the images.

  5. #25
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,578
    Images
    15
    Who said film is obsolete? The Guardian, in the UK? Presumably, the monarchy is also obsolete? Would they say that? You bet they wouldn't dare!
    Let's not forget what The Guardian has: a digi image is a mathematical algorithm; it bears and has no resemblance to the scene it has captured until a computer does the parsing — that's where the clever stuff ends. A few digits does not a photograph make, and never will make, in my eyes.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,392
    I started his thread as I felt that it really was a pity that, at a time when film seems to be experiencing a small (perhaps temporary) renaissance, a newspaper as good as The Guardian would expressly ignore it.

    Reading through the responses, I find it equally as much a pity (saddening, disappointing) that it has been taken as another opportunity to rehearse very tired "digital vs film" tirades.

    Even more saddening and disappointing is that, once again, the very people who are perhaps partially responsible for that little renaissance are derided with scorn and contempt as "hipsters" and "art school graduates". Very inclusive.

    The "argument" that "digital is not photography", by the way, commits the basic fallacy of arguing from a particular to a universal, let alone that of assuming the truth of it's conclusion in the initial premiss.

    Recently I saw APUG referred to as an "angry, aging,mostly testosterone-fed film group" ... by someone who is enthusiastic about using film.

    If you want film (and APUG) to survive, it will not be achieved by practising a form of cultural apartheid, nor by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you" at the digital world. If you offer rejection rather than acceptance, do not be surprised you are ignored and rejected. Contempt invites contempt.

    APUG is an enormous reservoir of the most valuable skill, knowledge and experience about film. If that reservoir is not tapped and fed to others, APUG will be it's graveyard, rather than it's Academy
    Last edited by pdeeh; 11-19-2012 at 03:35 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #27
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,595
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    It still co$t$ money to store all the images that are captured.
    But it's hardly comparable. And also, until you have filled up your hard drive, it doesn't cost any extra.

    I'm sure that no digital users think "I won't take anoher shot of that as it will cost me $0.01 extra to store it".

    My point was that people are far more likely to take multiple shots now with digital than they were with film despite motor drives making it possible.

    Nobody wanted to be changing rolls of film every two minutes or pay for the privillege.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    Even more saddening and disappointing is that, once again, the very people who are perhaps partially responsible for that little renaissance are derided with scorn and contempt as "hipsters" and "art school graduates". Very inclusive.
    I've been doing some research lately, here's some data:

    Film shooters
    Retards - 5%
    Social outcasts - 25%
    Pensioners who refuse to change - 40%
    Hipsters - 10%
    Asians - 20%
    Last edited by batwister; 11-19-2012 at 08:08 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #29
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,595
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    Film shooters
    Retards - 5%
    Social outcasts - 25%
    Pensioners who refuse to change - 40%
    Hipsters - 10%
    Asians - 20%
    We all know that 87.3% of all statistics are made up. Well.... 93.2% of us know that.


    Steve
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    339
    Images
    11
    Perhaps the Guardian would have been better off instead of dismissing film simply state that they're focusing on digital since that's what a majority of their readers shoot. (which let's face it is the truth.) I think both film and digital have their applications. For example if I wanted to make *absolutely sure* I captured an event I'd bring both...with the digital I can be certain, on the spot I've captured the event since I can see my result right away and there's no risk of something going wrong with the film, processing etc. I'd bring the film to get those wonderful quality images on a physical artifact that you can only get with film (not to mention it's an interesting conversation piece.)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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