Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,509   Posts: 1,597,988   Online: 1204
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    725
    I confess! I use digital in the shape of a NIkon D90 and very good it is too! However after a prolonged motorcycle tour of mid Europe and using the D90 I returned home to UK and downloaded an 8Gig memory card and at the time could not help thinking and feeling the results were created by someone in Japan or wherever the camera was made and I was only the carrier and operator of a machine, that had no real input from me. It really was a point and shoot exercise

    This feeling was strengthened when I went out a week or so later with my F100 and a couple of cassettes of FP4. Looking through the view finder was so much more satisfactory and what I photographed was then processed by myself into negatives - so much more satisfying.

    I don't really have an operational darkroom at the present time, it has had to be dismantled as I am moving house, only a temporary glitch I hope and I have grand plans for a well equipped room. Once again I can get down to processing B&W prints and then reincarnating my NOVA processor for RA4 colour. Oh happy days. (it beats sitting down in front of the computer)

  2. #22
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    MF/LF/Darkroom Gear is more accessible and cheaper than ever. Nothing to resent there. Not that resenting does any good or heals anyone or anything. Everything technical changes. Want to fix a radar from 1970's for your boat? Good luck. Buy a new one. Camera gear can still be fixed.

    Film is the only uncertainty. If you like Kodak, buy enough to fill the freezer and feel smug instead of resentful. If it's Ilford, keep buying it and use it rather than talk about it.
    Last edited by jp498; 06-30-2014 at 02:43 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #23
    yurisrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New York Metro Area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    260
    By being an advocate of film, I've often been called a Luddite when it comes to my photography by fellow photographers/passerby. I don't mind and I'm far from being defensive, little do they know that I work for end's meat with digital on a day-to-day basis and it just bores me to hell
    "The real work was thinking, just thinking." - Charles Chaplin

  4. #24
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by BMbikerider View Post
    at the time could not help thinking and feeling the results were created by someone in Japan or wherever the camera was made and I was only the carrier and operator of a machine, that had no real input from me. It really was a point and shoot exercise
    You have a heck of a lot more input into the shooting and function and results from the D90 than you do with a holga. And a holga is a certified cool film camera.

  5. #25
    NJH
    NJH is online now

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Weymouth
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by yurisrey View Post
    By being an advocate of film, I've often been called a Luddite when it comes to my photography by fellow photographers/passerby. I don't mind and I'm far from being defensive, little do they know that I work for end's meat with digital on a day-to-day basis and it just bores me to hell
    This agreed 100%. I should love digital, after all I have spent much of my adult life designing digital based sensor systems for Aircraft, Ships and Submarines. I have from time to time thought about designing my own digital camera given how atrociously bad the HMI is on so many of these products, I also work every day with computers using complicated engineering applications. I don't want to think to much about all this stuff in my free time so yes I resent the computerisation of so much of our lives. Its for similar reasons that guys buy expensive mechanical watches and old cars fueled by carburettors and no electronic safety net to stop you from sticking it backwards through a hedge. Plenty to get defensive about when caught by the attentions of an avid tech geek iPerson, which sadly are legion. Having said all that these are not the predominant reasons why I prefer to use film, I prefer the cameras, I prefer the lower cost of the equipment and its lack of depreciation and most of all I prefer how the results look even if looking at them on a computer screen.

  6. #26
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,780
    Images
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    Really???
    May I answer this with a question? At what period in the past, present or future do you think the number of digital images taken will equal or surpass the number of chemical images taken over the past 170 years? I would suggest it has already been surpassed. Do you get my drift?

    “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

  7. #27
    Dinesh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,608
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    ...... during which time the process has produced a multitude of iconic and classic images. Digital has yet to do this and prove it can do it,.....
    Are you suggesting that digital photography hasn't produced any "iconic and classic images"?
    Kick his ass, Sea Bass!

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,350
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    ... Do you get my drift?
    No. But not because I don't understand the words written, but because I think the metric suggested is incorrect... "number of iconic/classic images per lifetime of imaging technology in years" is a rediculous metric.

    Or as Dinesh wrote...

  9. #29
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,780
    Images
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Dinesh View Post
    Are you suggesting that digital photography hasn't produced any "iconic and classic images"?
    No, just not many in relation to possible digital image numbers (see my previous post).

    “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

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,996
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    3
    there are plenty of bad images in both media

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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