Anecdotal evidence aside, I guess the way to know is get the numbers from the film companies.
Originally Posted by MartinCrabtree
Probably more accurate than some guy saying he's going to start shooting film.
Fluff pieces in magazine articles and on blogs is just the daily filler needed to feed the machine.
It would be great if it actually is growing. More options, more choice.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
This is about the funniest thing I read all day.
Originally Posted by MatthewDunn
For those not in on the joke... MatthewDunn and I are going to get together in real life to do some darkroom work.
Real life? Or virtual abstract life??
"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."
— Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932
I'd be surprised if film sales are more than 2% of 1995. Hope I'm wrong. Maybe digital opened up a new constituency of people who wouldn't have taken photographs before, because relative percentage of film to digital must be nearer 0.01%. Among photographers who consider themselves enthusiasts, I'd guess around 5% shoot film. However you look at it, film is pretty niche these days, but as a technology for which new hardware sales are next to non-existent, film is a massive success story. Compared to audio tape with a similar heritage, film is positively booming!
Originally Posted by MartinCrabtree
Last edited by blockend; 08-30-2013 at 04:32 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I only read KR's site for it's entertainment value. I don't take any of it seriously. You'll come across something like "Sharpness doesn't matter. Pros don't care about sharpness, especially in the corners." And in another one of his articles you'll see something like "I love this lens. It's sharp sharp sharp, even in the corners."
Pentax 645, Pentax ME Super
Minolta SRT 102, SRT 202
Canon A1, TX
many Nikons-F2 eye level F2AS N90s, F4E, N2000, N6000, N6006, Nikomat FTN, N5005
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Was reminded of this thread when I saw the prices of used Nikon gear shoot up / being stable on ebay.
I had been wanting to try some of the older nikon gear but had put it off as I wanted to use the newly bought old stuff first - was in '11. Now, I see that most of the gear has appreciated in price. Even used Nikon flashes!
Some are attributed to strobist, others to Nex and other micro 4/3rd users buying up the lenses.
Maybe film might pick up too!
He does have some good stuff on there. Like pack light - you get more pictures when you're not fumbling with equipment. My main lens is a 28-200mm f/4 zoom, though I do have a manual focus 50mm f/2 lens as well. With my Pentax PZ-20 I can have all of the automation, or none of it except the motor drive. I have 5 program modes, aperture priority, shutter priority, and fully manual for exposure (with the 50mm lens I have I lose all exposure modes except aperture priority and manual). I can even turn AF off if I so desire. In some situations, I do exactly that - turn all of the automation off (I do use the built-in meter though, even in manual mode).
Originally Posted by f/16
Another thing - it's not all about the gear. KR knows this.
Shoot more film.
There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.
KR's website is part legitimate commentary, part hyperbole, and part tongue in cheek, and he doesn't always tell you which is which, so you have to be able to take the information and opinions he gives and filter it based on additional knowledge you gain elsewhere. Some people can't tolerate that approach to photography commentary. I don't mind it.
Actually, on the technical side of things Rockwell's pronouncements are probably at least as accurate (taken as an average) as the average post at APUG, and everyone here at APUG knows you have to filter the information given here based other knowledge.
26 pages about Ken Rockwell?!
I like his lens reviews, a lot. He tests for the things I care for. But you have to have a good sense of humor to like them.
I liked the fact that he tests for chromatic abberration by photographying a white gazebo and if the lens is good he says:
"This lens is approved by the PPLFPA, Professional Patio and Lawn Furniture Photographers' Association, with a grade of "A.""
If you understand the basis for this kind of gig, one thing you need to realize about people who make their living doing constant gear reviews is that they shoot from the hip an awful lot. Like many things either on the web or in print, take it with a grain of salt; and if you want something done right, do it yourself. But I'd give Mr. Rockwell higher scores than something like Consumer Reports, which is one most misleading sources of information I can think of in many case, in numerous categories. In a product category we all can relate to here, I remember where they rated the Lecia as the worst 35mm buy on the market because you paid way too much for it and didn't even get a free camera bag, flash, or other silly goodies. With the exception of automobile reports, the very concepts of quality and reliability seem to be missing from their vocabulary.