What you don't do is constantly beat others over the head with your perceived superiority of the tools you chose. Regardless of which side those tools evolved from. Or incessantly point out what has happened in the film-based marketplace over the last decade, as if the rest of us hadn't already seen it for ourselves. Or worse, saw it but didn't—or couldn't—understand it. Sheesh.
No, the ones I'm referring to are the ones who are here, and welcomed, but who never post any photographs, never participate in any of the print exchanges, never contribute to the analog side of discussions, don't occasionally stop by to welcome a newcomer, never share when they have found a neat film camera or darkroom trick, don't offer their assistance to other members, or do much of anything else.
All they seem to want to do is to remind us, again and again and again, directly or indirectly, how backward we really are. They're open-minded about it, of course, and so can accept our backwardness with grace. But they just want to make certain we know, that they know, that we have been left behind technologically. And as well, by inference, that they have not.
Trust me. I have not been left behind technologically. Nor have you. Nor have most of the others here. But it does get frustrating and tiresome hearing over and over and over again about how we, in fact, have been.
Does it ever occur to these individuals to just use whatever technology they want to use, then let the others choose to use what they want to use, then respect the charter here and politely limit the discussions of those choices as appropriate?
Sometimes I do wonder if concentrating so much film-based expertise in one place was such a good idea. Often it seems that in doing so all that has been accomplished was to provide a target-rich environment. People with nothing better to do can then join up just to amuse themselves by shooting the fish in the barrel.
And I say again, you guys know who you are...
Things really have to be put in perspective because at the end of the day, few really care. Make the choice, enjoy the ride, live and let live, make good art and don't forget to have fun and smile :)
I'm thinking more about mainstream and tech site articles which happen to discuss film, or the industry, and invariably some wise-ass will make a remark. When Kodak announced bankruptcy, there were a great many "oh, now film is dead" comments. Now I suspect those to be ignorance rather than malice. People who don't understand bankruptcy and who honestly believe that Kodak make all film. I truly believe the worst of the "film drools digital rules" crowd have moved on.
H'mm My colour negs taken in the 1960's the colours have only faded slightly and easily improved in Photoshop. For slide film:- Kodachrome is still excellent but Perutz has faded badly and Agfa only slightly.
I confess to not having read all 16 pages so please forgive if my comments are redundant.
My appreciation for film photography increased significantly when I started going thru my fathers negatives from the 1950s and 1960s when he and my mother first moved to Japan. It was fascinating, and I was very impressed with the image quality in many cases. He started with a 6x9 camera of some sort and then moved to a 6x6 TLR for most of the next ten years. He started to dabble in 35mm in the mid-fifties but still did the majority on 6x6. Some time in the mid-sixties he switched mostly to color 35mm negatives and that is where the image quality takes a real dive. The negatives are often faded badly (almost exclusively Japanese emulsions) and just aren't much fun to work with.
It's good to remember in this discussion that a negative and a print are real. They exist in the real world as an image, whereas a digital file is not a real image; it's a real digital file. It WILL corrupt, become unreadable, show some sign of deterioration over time because it is not immune to that. Nothing is, not you, not me, nor the neg or the print. All things WILL die, it's only a question of time. But a somewhat deteriorated neg or print is still viewable, and can be brought back to it's original glory if it hasn't gone too far. Not true for the digital file. If it gets to the point where it won't open, bye bye.
To me, the greatest thing about film is that it looks better than digital, sometimes by a considerable margin. Think about it. You never see a film maker crowing that it's film looks as good as digital, but companies are always going on and on about how their digital software can "emulate" different films.
I don't worry at all about what happens if a hurricane (live in Florida) hits and all my work disappears, either the files or the negs/prints. I worry about ME disappearing, and the cat and ol lady. That's my priorities. I can always make another photograph, but this life is all I have.
I recently came across a box of photos that my parents took years ago. It made me wonder if we'll have anything to leave for our future generations. I hope so. Or maybe it won't matter.
I suppose there will be photo CDs and DVDs that will still be readable. Or not. And perhaps we'll come across a hard drive that is full of images. If you notice, they aren't even called photos, but images. Maybe it's the same thing. Maybe it isn't.