Tired of anti-digital threads

[Max Power]

[QUOTE=JD Morgan]From the mind of a disco shooter... A post from another forum titled:

I'm suffering from Digital Fatigue
I asked at the Apple Store if a G5 would speed things up and he said no. I'm about at my wit's end.

Any solutions?
QUOTE]

Had I read the original post, on the site to which it was posted, I probably would have proposed that the author go out and pop $150 on a Rolleicord and a couple of bucks for a roll of film. What cheek, eh?

The sad truth, though, is that the result would most certainly be better than anything an Apple G5 and nifty DSLR could do.

[dr bob]

Oh-oh, here is another digital disaster! Not a camera – oh no, my old (20 years at least) digital timer, a “Chronus” (?), has failed! Last week it worked great. Last night when needed (has red LEDs) – nothing. Battery leaked! Circuit board corroded! Now what happens to a $K camera when this happens? Never? Don’t kid yourself. They may try to tell you the compartments are leak proof. I’ll bet the farm not. In ancient time when we worked with KOH (electrolyte) under pressure, we checked the integrity of our piping systems with a helium leak detector. Within days, evidence of KOH creep could be detected as carbonate deposits on the swaged fittings. Battery electrolyte will get anywhere!

BION, after a thorough cleaning and 12 hours operation on a regulated power supply, the timer works again! Go figure. Will cameras do as well????

[anyte]

These days it is quite common for most everyone to assume that every image they see has been digitally produced. Unless you take care to make sure your viewers are well informed of the process used to create your image we will lose more and more people to digital. People will see the beauty of your work and will marvel at how wonderful digital photography is/has become. They will rush out and buy the lastest and best digital, believing that quality comes with a bigger price tag. If they already have the lastest they will just strive that much harder to create similar images. It will drive the production of even more patches and add-ons to create analog effects.

No one's work can speak for itself if the viewer doesn't know the difference.

[Ed Sukach]

I don't see APUG as a "Digital-Bashing" organization ... no more than an Oil Painting Group could be considered as an "anti-charcoal" group. Our interests and focus of attention simply lie in "Analog" - film-chemistry photography. Others like digital - more power to them ... but please don't try so damned hard to convert me. I've tried "digital", thank you. I have an understanding of the mechanics - or more properly - the electrics of it - probably more than the average "digiteer". I've chosen to remain with film ... a conscious CHOICE I have made.

The other day, I ran across a "defector"... sold his Leicas and Rollie (actually traded them for a pittance) -- crowing about how his digital prints were better than his "film" prints - both done in a commercial lab. I questioned the results ... BOTH sets were printed DIGITALLY - one using the input from a card, and the other from a scanned color negative ... on the same machine. I won't blow my own horn as far as my color printing skills .. but one thing is certain ... I could print those color negatives a great deal better than what I saw.
In his mind, comparing one color digital print to another color digital print, provided fair proof of the superiority of digital photography.

Oh, well - all I can do is unwrap another Flavored Strip - and move on.

[Art Vandalay]

I had a bit of good news, in the ongoing digital vs film wars. I was talking to an instructor at our local very artsy art college (Emily Carr) about Ilford's announcements and she said that the college just bought a very expensive, but rapid BW paper processor. I'm not sure about other art schools but the one here has made a very big committement to the film/paper world. I've also noticed that when I go to see exhibitions by emerging artists that their photography is always film based. They may scan and print digitally but they always start with film and often they'll use alternative darkroom techniques. In fact there seems to be a very anti-digital undercurrent in the art world. So the next time people want to malign the (modern) art world, just remember that they are on our side...and for good reason.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with the original thread but I just wanted to get my two cents worth in