As Michael A. Smith says, "Bring on the digital. It just makes traditional silver prints more valuable."
Originally Posted by jovo
Tom, you got it right. The digiheads can't stand anyone that won't assimilate into the Collective. Just today, a digihead I work with had to try and impress me again with his snapshots and how well they came out. I'm always very polite but still refuse to be assimilated.
FWIW, I've been saying and believing that as digital gets bigger, the hand-crafted silver print is going to become more valuable and seen even more as an artform. I welcome it.
I was at the bookstore scanning the photo mags that I do not buy, and believe it or not American Photo actually was reviewing cell phone cameras as part of their new product review section in the latest issue.
I am glad that B&W is sticking to the non-digital portfolios. It is a great magazine, only one of two I subscribe to now, the other being LensWork.
"Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
In the spirit of 'lomography' you are lookin' at the proud new owner of cellphography.com, .net, and .org
Not that I give a crap about cell phone photography, but they are going to have to call it something, and I want to be there to cash in! Wish me luck, hehe
Hey what happen to my post? FWIW I agree wholeheartedly.
Originally Posted by david b
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Talking about your digital crapping out. I had a D1H for when I do my journalism stuff and after about a year the shutter went on it. Price to fix $700! I had no choice as I had an assignment coming up I had to repair it. Then 6 months later the D2H came out and the D1H is worthless.
So I am with you on people sick of upgrading. I have moved a lot of my photography (portraits, weddings) back to film. Why? because the quality is better and the archival is safer. Digital media does not have a fool proof way of archiving. CD, DVD and hard drives go bad. People say what about fire. Well what about it. CD, DVD and HD will all melt and burn as well so that argument isn’t valid.
Hopefully people will come to their senses. Either way I buy film shoot it and develope it and will continue. If I have to go to a paper neg or glass then so be it.
I have used both and I honestly like film in MF and LF better. 35mm a toss up.
I would like to give my profound thanks to the digital tsunami.
Were it not for the tsunami, I would not have all of the lovely G-Clarons and Process Apo Nikkors that I bought for around 1 cent on the dollar.
Everything is analog - even digital :D
C'mon Sean, Lomography is the most pure, unmanipulated form of analog photography there is. Stick a roll of Lucky or outdated chrome film for x-process in your LC-A and whatever comes out of the machine is _it_.
Originally Posted by Sean
I love it. It's like therapy, it takes the "anal" out of "analog.
That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
ok will re-phrase that, -in the spirit of the naming style of 'lomography' is more what I meant
Just a thought
Digital photography, as we now understand it to be, is a technology and like all "new and hot" technologies it will be surpassed and fazed out by even newer technology. I don’t pretend to be Nostradamus, but it is logical for digital image making to fade into the back closets and second hand shops of society as newer and more consumer friendly ways of making and sharing pictures are produced. Consumer history dictates that markets based on gadgets and toys for adults are terribly fickle and ever changing. What is hot today is dead and gone by lunch tomorrow. I say all this realizing that photography in and of itself is a technology that was at one time hot and new, but unlike anything produced and marketed as digital, photography is based almost exclusively on chemistry and the physical properties of light. Two things that have existed for as long as there has been, well, a sun. Not to mention the fact that despite refinements in the basic materials involved in analog photography (i.e., faster, finer grain films and technological improvements to more or less existing camera bodies and lenses some of these for better others for worse) photography has changed little since Joseph Nicéphore Niepce made his eight hour exposure and successfully fixed the first negative. Yada Yada Yada. What I am saying is that film is real (you can hold it and touch it), while pixels never really exist. They require a whole host of other technologies (a computer, a monitor, a printer, and electricity) to be made evident and even then they are only transitory, existing only as long as something else supports them. To destroy a negative you’d have to burn it, cut it up, drop it in acid, hell you could fry it in a frying pan, but all you have to do to destroy a pixilated image is to shut off the electricity and poof it’s gone. I, for one, don’t want hours and hours of my life going into making something that is so feeble and in such constant flux.
[COLOR=DarkOliveGreen][SIZE=2]"We are not at War, we are having a nervous breakdown". Hunter S. Thompson[/SIZE][/COLOR]