Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,117   Posts: 1,613,216   Online: 838
      
Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678910111216 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 173
  1. #51
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Quote Originally Posted by adelorenzo View Post
    When this video came out I was surprised at the amount of negative reaction from film photographers. I think that you've got to put it in perspective: It's some guys who run a film lab, going on a road trip and talking to people (probably their clients) about why THEY shoot film. Most of all it's just fun.
    This film was sponsored by Kodak (when they still were busy with still film). So one could assume they thought this film either to mirror the stand of many film photographers or to be of interest to many wannabe photographers.

  2. #52
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,226
    First Digital vs Film is getting boring neither is better they are different media and yes I and others would probably see the difference in a blind test.

    Also I like most of Blansky's post they are usually funny and intelligent in this case I have to somewhat side with PKM-25. Bashing Film on a site that is here to promote the use of film is extremely counterproductive and quite frankly stupid.

    The film is no masterpiece, the photographers come across as Hipsters as opposed to real photographers furthermore I am missing quite a few photographic genres in the infomercial and the promised romance doesn't really come across.

    For a decent film about the magic of the Darkroom look no further than the movie about Nathalie Lopparelli (french Masterprinter), she doesn't need to wax poetics it's all there in the images. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz2dC5MXjSY s
    Talk is cheap it's the results that count and showing the real magic as opposed to talking might be a better way to promote the use of film.

    Second recently a poster on the RFF said something so intelligent it blew my mind there is no digital image and there can never be a digital image. The Sensor is analogue, the image you see is analogue. The digital part of the image is a written code not an image a photographer or anyone who isn't a computer can see, all digital cameras need an A/D converter in order to display an image. Meaning all images are analogue the storage and compression is the difference

  3. #53
    adelorenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    The film is no masterpiece, the photographers come across as Hipsters as opposed to real photographers furthermore I am missing quite a few photographic genres in the infomercial and the promised romance doesn't really come across.
    Can you define for me what a 'real photographer' is? Those people in the film sure seemed like they were making real photos to me but maybe I'm just too dumb to understand.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,049
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    the photographers come across as Hipsters as opposed to real photographers
    Just this sentence fragment encapsulates an attitude of non-inclusivity - and in many cases frank snobbery - that permeates APUG and makes it very hard to like being here sometimes.

    No wonder, as someone posted above, people come here but don't want to stay.

  5. #55
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,096
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    My beef is not really with anyone but Blanksy on this thread.

    The guy has obviously gone digital awhile ago for his portrait work but for some reason, he hangs out and takes a nice big fly ridden steamer on anything that pits film against digital. For Pete's sake Shawn, I must have double the professional digital experience as him and I just don't get it, the need for him to OD on digital laxatives every time one of these threads pops up.

    I think I post these responses more for people like Claire to read when she comes here rather than to convince the ever present squadron of "B-Negatives" overhead....
    I guess this is where I'm supposed to respond.

    Film is magic. Always has been, always will be.

    But the video in question is propaganda and nonsense and that was my gripe. If you think it helps sell film, fine. If you think it helps get new people into film photography, fine.

    I think it's tripe and does no favors to anybody except Kodak maybe. As I said 10 posts ago, almost all the reasons they supposedly shot/went back to film, were typical adolescent film vs digital foolishness. And almost none held water.

    Personally I don't like BSers or propaganda very much and this video was all that. Just too cool for school to me.

    As for dumping on film. Never have. But I have defended digital when someone pushed the idea that, 1. It's not photography. 2. Parrots silly stuff usually found on the film vs digital war sites that have no basis in fact.

    Also the reason most women don't come here I've heard is because it's almost all men here. And as someone said, it's tries to be a serious site and not one that typically spouts the usual, "very nice dear" stuff.

    Good luck on your venture in Aspen. Sincerely.

    The more young people that get into film photography the better for everyone.
    Last edited by blansky; 01-29-2014 at 03:16 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  6. #56
    dwross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oregon Coast
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by adelorenzo View Post
    Can you define for me what a 'real photographer' is? Those people in the film sure seemed like they were making real photos to me but maybe I'm just too dumb to understand.
    +1

    I think the film is a charming slice of photographic life. Are we (as in: photo geezers) really determined to drive away anyone younger than the personal computer? The attacks on the article written by Mike Johnston (many years ago) on lens chasing was another set of gobsmacking examples, e.g., "I read that stuff back in the 70s. Can't imagine why it needs to be written again." I just don't understand the attitude.
    www.thelightfarm.com
    Dedicated to Handmade Silver Gelatin Paper, Film, and Dry Plates.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,315
    Because you don't understand hobbyist photographers. It is all about attitude problems (I'm not excluding myself either).

    But seriously, is any of this nonsense banter in a forum actually going to discourage people from taking up analog photography? Really?

    I don't recall Blansky bashing film either. He just points out the dumbassness of typical anti-digital arguments when they surface here.

  8. #58
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,096
    Quote Originally Posted by dwross View Post
    +1

    I think the film is a charming slice of photographic life. Are we (as in: photo geezers) really determined to drive away anyone younger than the personal computer? The attacks on the article written by Mike Johnston (many years ago) on lens chasing was another set of gobsmacking examples, e.g., "I read that stuff back in the 70s. Can't imagine why it needs to be written again." I just don't understand the attitude.
    Perhaps having an adult conversation about a propaganda piece by Kodak is not really going to hurt the children too much.

    When you go home from a movie at the theater and discuss it with people do you really think that it stops anyone from ever seeing a movie again.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  9. #59
    dwross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oregon Coast
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Because you don't understand hobbyist photographers. It is all about attitude problems (I'm not excluding myself either).

    But seriously, is any of this nonsense banter in a forum actually going to discourage people from taking up analog photography? Really?

    I don't recall Blansky bashing film either. He just points out the dumbassness of the typical anti-digital arguments when they surface here.
    Probably a few. I have no doubt it discourages participation on this site.
    www.thelightfarm.com
    Dedicated to Handmade Silver Gelatin Paper, Film, and Dry Plates.

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,315
    I guess I just don't think participation on this site (or any of the other ones which are way worse in terms of information) necessarily has much to do with getting into analog photography. In fact the first thing I usually tell beginners is to read some stuff by Kodak and Ilford before even getting into discussions on a website.

    Off topic at this point I suppose.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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