Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
Whuzzup Stone?!

In a word, the painters had it easier than we do, we live in a bigger world that has the invasion of intrepid thinking called the Internet...2012 has been a bad, bad year for both film and the film user, Nikon's BS move is not helping....
Hey Dan! Very true, the world is so big that it's small... Or is it that we are small in it?

I may have to go exclusively film again, Hurricane Sandy seems to have waterlogged my Canon 5D Mark II and I don't have 3 grand for the Mark III, shows how well made my Canon EOS 1V was made that it survived...perhaps I'm being told something by the universe...

Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
Yes, he's here, sometimes on photo.net too. And of course the Kodachrome Project.

I don't understand this. What's to vet?
Make it clear stolen (or "borrowed") images will lead to disqualification. Or run all the finalist images through something like tineye. EXIF can be faked so that's no guarantee. And to exclude the work of some photographers for ease or cost reasons? To deny people a chance because they don't want to go to some trouble or to save money is unethical.
That doesn't mean people wouldn't try, and perhaps it's easier to prevent this with digital somehow? Ask them why.

Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
It is a medium of the past. Over 150 years of iconic images bear witness to its ability to reach people of all stations in life.
It is also a medium of the present. Film is still being made, and is being used by people with the drive and determination to realize their vision through it.
It is also a medium of the future, so long as there are companies making film, and beyond that people making their own emulsions and carbons and gum prints, just as some do now. That artistry should not be ignored.

It is not much different from painting, really. Except that successful painters receive much more money for their work.
Painting was the medium of the past, it is a highly valued art form of the present, and it will continue to be in the future, even if painters have to grind their own pigments and mix their own paints. I know one who does that now, to get what he wants.
I meant that just like painting, film photography has moved from the "new" art, to the "old" art, digital is the new image art, and soon it will be something else (probably 3D or something like it). So in that sense it's of the past. And it's viewed by the majority as antique or quaint, like when I use my Autograohic foldies, I draw a crowd, fascination with antiques can also be profitable, so it could be good for us film guys, less competition.

Also most painters do NOT make more than photographers, not by a long shot, their paintings susally star to make money at second hand sales post mortem but during their lifetimes they are often unnoticed, only a select few are not the starving artists. This is true of photography but at least we have the option of making money, dare I mention weddings? You don't see a lot of painters doing a 6 hour wedding and walking away with $2,000-$12,000 twice a weekend for say 3 months of the year... I can't imagine main photos LIKE weddings, but they do it for the $ (or £, ¥, €, ₩, didn't want to exclude people haha).

Anyway, either next year they will open up to film again because of the complaints, or they won't, it is what it is, let's just keep plugging along and enjoying the fact we even have film to shoot on...


The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk