Fair enough, (tip o' the hat).It is this exact sentiment that I take issue with! The biography on Jobs has been read by a huge number of my friends, because we admire the work and legacy of such an innovative man (whether you agree with Apple's business approach or not is irrelevant, honestly). Nintendo was originally a playing card company in the previous century. People are so quick to judge...
I remember the Apple II, and I remember the first iMac, and what a change in the computing world it made. I remember when broadband changed the scope of the internet and I probably had a myspace and facebook acccount before many of you did (surely before it was the in vogue thing for literally everyone to have.)
The old ways will only be brought into the new era if people like myself choose to appreciate the variety of methodologies available to the creative process. It is this precise reason why the vast majority of young film users are the 16-25 segment, and not the 26-35 segment. We are sick of being pandered to by faceless corporations that want us to believe that a $500 DSLR and $99 18-55/3.5-5.6 or 50/1.8 is the best thing since sliced bread. We don't want our cameras to tell us what to do, just as much as we don't want our parents/teachers/advisors/etc to tell us what to do. If you can't respect the fact that when more than half of the members of this board will be dead in the next 40 years, the only people giving a shit about the traditions of fine-art photography will be those of my generation, I don't know what to tell you. If that scares you, then instead of belittling the next person who asks you about your Crown Graphic wondering how many megapixels it has, offer them a peek under the hood and let them try to shoot a frame. Film is cheap, and the knowledge that you might have turned a 17 year old into a future Rolleiflex/Graflex/Nikon F user should more than compensate you for the astronomically expensive loss of a 75¢-$2.00 sheet of film.
For all it's worth, I have never, ever, ever encountered someone who thought less of me as a photographer because I choose to use film for my personal work. If anything it has garnered me greater respect from those who don't know the intricacies of the medium.
Film doesn't make you special, it just makes you wait. Digital doesn't make you special, it just lets you be impatient.
As to Stone's sentiment, forget privilege, my friends use Hasselblads and Leicas too, and we're all poor (former or currently enrolled) art students. The best film gear on the planet can be had for less than the cost of a mid-range DSLR if you know what you're after. Stop whining and make work, or don't say anything at all.
You're not going to change the contemporary sensibilities in photography (which I primarily think are total bullshit), but if you want people to appreciate the craft and value of the darkroom the last way to do it is by belittling whatever methods they have chosen to work with up until that point. As far as I'm concerned, any young photographer that isn't versed in both sides of the medium (that is digital and traditional chemical processes) is a substandard candidate for any sort of creative job. If you aren't as comfortable with your eye in a D800E as you are behind an F3 or a Rollei, or a M6, or RZ67, much less in front of a Saunders 4550XLG or Focomat V35 as you are in Lightroom 5, then you have no place in the modern photographic fine art world.
Unapologetic, but true. People that ignore the old ways and only focus on the new are short-changing themselves, and those that ignore the ways of the future and choose to live in the past are going to miss out on a hell of a lot of great evolution in the medium.
PS did Lightroom 5 actually come out? I thought it was on ore-order... Lol
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk