When did you last promote film use?
It's fun to be evangelical.
On Thanksgiving my brother-in-law showed up at our house with a new Olympus E-520. Not a bad little kit. I had an E-500 for a couple years but the tiny sensor just makes bad pics, IMHO.
He's had a Canon AE-1 for years. I bought him a lens for it last Christmas. So I asked why he got the Oly... well, the Canon was too slow. Oh you mean you wanted autofocus? Nope. It takes too long to wind between shots....
Quick trip to the basement, returning with my Canon A-1 and Motor Drive MA. Wow. How fast is it? Are you kidding me? Wow. Honey, could you write that model down...?
Hint to eBay folks, there's a market right now for a motor drive MA you may have gathering dust...
In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.
Last night when I sent the December issue of Creative Image Maker magazine to ePress. (I know, shameless huh)
"Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti
My myspace and face book photo blogs are predominantly B&W films in German glass, complete with developing information to share to the young people. I do admit that I have a few digital snaps but that's my alternative to replace Polaroid. I just hate it when I only brought a digital camera and I saw a subject or moment that I can only express best in B&W films or color transparencies.
Every time I walk out the door with my Mamiya, Pentax, or Yashicamat G, I promote film because people are always commenting that they used to have one of "those" and it took good pictures.
"I, in humility, am willing to learn, when you, in humility, are ready to teach." Rusty Tripod
I work at the largest photo store in the country and happily promote film everyday. Although i only sell camera bags, i always chat up and encourage anyone who buys film. It does feel good to be evangelical every once and a while.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Just yesterday, at Zeiss
Yesterday, at Zeiss in Jena, Germany.
Though it was at the split-off medical division of Zeiss, Jena. I'm an ophthalmologist and they held a course about their vessel analysis system. I had my Nikon S3 with me and took some photos of the fundus cameras, computer gear and of course of the participants. That quickly got me into an off-topic (for the course) discussion with the instructors, all of them being ardent "Zeissianer" well versed in the history of Zeiss lenses and Contax cameras. Some of them shoot film, too.
The fundus camera we worked with was interesting, too. It was a model FF450 with impeccable Zeiss optics, but the camera attached to one of it's ports took me by surprise: a Leica R9 with a custom digital sensor back.
What an unexpected marriage of two of the most prestigious names in German optics!
Originally Posted by ron110n
I agree with your use of digi and it is a sensible use—snaps. The guiding philosophy behind my use of digital is to evaluate and tweak a scene on the 3.0" screen before committing it to the more expensive medium of film—just as a MF user will switch to a Polaroid back for the same purpose, then to Velvia or whatever else. Yes, it sounds like cheating, but it's not when you consider how many Polaroids a dedicated pro will churn through until the scene is 'just so'! I set my digi (Canon G9, exposure adjustments AEB etc. identical to EOS 1N) to Positive Film rendering and freely bracket up and down, scrutinising the results before virtually replicating the ideal scene on Provia (which, incidentally, being much less contrasty than any of the Velvias doesn't really need copious bracketing). I am sometimes unhappy with myself for buying my second digi camera but in fairness, I wanted a larger display visible without having to put my glasses on! But promote film I do: film is still the gold standard when you need to express yourself and show the knowledge and skill behind the fundamental action of making an image, as opposed to "taking" a picture as so many digi "photographers" are doing nowadays.
.:: PDJ ::.
“The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see." ~Edward Weston, 1922.
I normally shoot with MF TLRs, or 35mm swing-lens Widelux, or on vacation I'll add a 100 y/o Kodak Panoram swing-lens cam to the kit. *Any* of those 3 cams tends to draw gawkers and stimulate convo.
The TLR: "Oh, my dad / grandpa / uncle had one of those, all our family pics were taken with it!"
The swing-lens cams: "WHAT is that?"
The 100 y/o Kodak: "WHAT is that? How old is that? It still works? How does it work?"
But once in a while, I get to shoot with my #10 Cirkut. To say it draws gawkers and stimulates convo is an extreme understatement. Since it takes about 30 minutes to setup the camera, there's usually an audience long before I've started arranging the scene. The whole shoot is a bit of a production, really. Immediately afterward, there's lots of questions.
A day / week / month later; showing the result (a negative that measures 10" tall by several feet long), nobody ever tells me I should have done the shot in digital.....
I'm currently writing an article on traditional photography for the daily paper I shoot for. Anyone who has some interesting tales to tell of their involvement, love or experience with film is welcome to PM me!
Last night, when everyone else's cameras were digital, and they all failed due to low battery power.
My RB67 needs no battery, it's awesome!