Yep, and let's not forget about the "depth" of the emulsion as well.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
Just to say it (and I recognize that I am preaching to the converted here), I always find it amusing when people use things like Instagram (which I admittedly use), VSCO film presets, etc. Ya know, you don't have to settle for an attempt to reproduce film. You could always go out and, you know, shoot film...
In other words, +1 to omaha and Ken N.
(Back to the topic)
I am what one would say partial to Ken's views, and he has been responsible for me having a GAS and a couple of extra lenses that I dont use often. Also majorly responsible for starting me off on the film journey - the easy Fx on film route, for example. But he also has enough non-gear articles, and like every blog post ever, or a series of forum posts like here, they have to be taken with a bit of researching on your own. I would not have known about the ability to use older Nikon lenses on current digital bodies or vice-versa without that website, so many thanks on that count, to him.
*most* of the gear I own, isnt via his recommendations, mind; but there are enough other useful information on his page and as Omaha pointed out, he does mention that gear doesn't matter.
And I got a really really useful tip off him on buying goods on ebay, bidding at the last minute etc., - not enough information on *that* elsewhere.
I do not understand why people go hyperbole on him, if there is a reason to go hyperbole, it as at the dearth of (useful) camera reviews elsewhere, instead there are millions that seemingly put a score to every damn thing and rate them out of 5 or 10 or a billion stars. Most (all?) of *those* reviews are shit compared to a chap expressing an opinion. I would rather read a "review" where a person goes, "Hey, this is my opinion" (and the obvious, go read a bit more blah blah) than a review claiming objectivity and saying its 8.5 out of 10 stars.
Let me illustrate, I was the first in my entire circle of friends and family to buy a digital SLR - back when the idea hadn't even caught on here and the 2nd generation DSLRs were only starting to be announced(now there are more DSLRs than idiots around). I went nuts trying to compare what I had to buy, every review said each camera had one extra feature compared to another. One thing I remember vividly was a review saying X camera (Pentax or Olympus?, dont remember) was better because it had sensor cleaning - which was obliterated by another that said just blow the dust off.
I got lucky that I was in Japan then and could actually go and shoot each of the cameras - in a store, sure, but I could compare each of those I was trying to buy.
And the one I went with was that one that felt most natural to use - and imho that is still the best reason to buy. It is one reason I prefer a manual film camera over a digital film camera over an automated film camera. Sure, horses for courses, but get that out of a review that says 8.75 out of 10 stars.
I since recommend doing that to people who ask me for a recco, but most people still want to compare the 8 out of 10 stars some idiot website gives them OR I get told they *need* a (d)SLR when I recommend that they use a Micro4/3rds/Mirrorless cos its more compact!
On film, I think its gotta do with new range of Instant cameras that are around and of course Lomography. Of course, not every one wants to process film, or own a darkroom, the digital convenience will still rule (where everything needs to go on FB/Instagram instantly), but I reckon the "wow" factor of having a print just handed out would rule - recently, My brother and his friends(all ~20-22) were wowed when a restaurant offered them a digital print of an evening out!
I would not anymore take seriously anybody who writes to attract attention and makes money from it. I have read his website for about a year or so when I was a beginner and realized my photography improved greatly when I completely stopped following whatever advice he gives. Interesting personality, really, but in the back of my mind I have always thought I don´t actually find anything inspiring in his photo gallery...
That rules out everything from the media, not just news media.
Originally Posted by mauro35
- via tapatalk.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Hey this is all a great debate about KR, and I like his site most of the time, too, but the real topic was about this comment about "the exploding popularity of film!"
I do agree that the idea of having something tangible in your hand (real negative) rather than virtual in the computer (digital file) seems to be coming into it's own again. Kind of the same idea as going into a store to see, touch, feel an actual item rather than buying on the web or catalog. Ken and Omaha you are correct: Why create a simulation of a film image when it is far simpler and easier to create the real thing!
Well, I hope this (relative, surely) exploding business is enough exploding to convince the Kodak's of the world to stop exploding the factory and keep feeding the film explosion.
All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.
Kodak already sold that business. It is now for the new owner of the still photography business to decide and to order films.
If they feel any rumble of an explosion at all...
Do your best to show how beautiful film can be and the prints made from it and it'll never die. My recent pinhole shots just made 2 conversions...
Ken Rockwell is not for me, but I am pleased that others find him useful.
“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”
And is a man isn't useful, he should at least be handsome.
Originally Posted by cliveh