shannon_t

So why does Hollywood still keep their movie stock in cold storage vaults?

I'm sorry, but I have to take any millennial who wears really tight pants, flannel, and vintage style shoes who tells his friends to shoot him in the butt with blow darts with a ton(not a grain, a tot) of salt.

You mean a fellow film-only photographer like yourself?

His web site

I just found this: Foresthill Film Lab

He has no website other than YouTube(www.youtube.com/channel/UCbDG7XYhdWuSrRvhMcFxSeQ www.youtube.com/user/bobcat802003), Flickr(www.flickr.com/photos/photosbytravis), Instagram(www.instagram.com/killindreams), and Facebook(www.facebook.com/travis.mortz).

This isn't the first time Maris waxed poetically about how there's no such thing as digital photography. In a 2013 interview with The Large Format Blog in Australia: "There is no such thing as digital photography. It's digital picture-making. Photography is the production of pictures out of light sensitive substances. Digital picture-making consumes no light sensitive substances; therefore not photography. And the thoughtless chorus of millions of digital picture-makers doesn't legitimise the "digital" equals "photography" fallacy. Aristotle listed this kind of fallacy in his perceptive analysis of informal fallacies. In philosophy it’s usually referred to as the argumentum ad populum fallacy."

I was just about to say that he makes Ken Rockwell look sane and knowledgeable. But on a more serious note, it's one thing to have your own opinions, it's another to aggressively present your opinions and bigotry as facts. Travis is doing nothing to help film photography. In fact, if anything, he's hurting it by making the film community(especially the ones who shoot film exclusively) look like an exclusive clique of badly-dressed millennials. Stuff like that makes me want to swear off film forever...

Turns out that's just the tip of the iceberg. He has an earlier video called "Film Vs. Digital: The True Costs", where he he tries to prove that film is several times less expensive than digital and then proceeds to bash digital photographers: "Well you're gonna buy a $900 camera then a 5D because you're a dumb digital shooter. Us film bros know how to go to a thrift store, and use eBay, and get the savviest deal ever."

I'm talking about his elitist views. I believe film and digital photography can coexist together, but this guy ain't helping. If anything, he's also reinforcing stereotypes about film photographers, especially the film-only crowd. Also do you really want your children, if you have any, to grow up to have the same attitude as him?

A Sacramento photographer and BMXer, who real name is Travis Mortz, posted a video a day ago telling people that there's no such thing is digital photography. He claims that photography can only be done on one-time-use light sensitive materials. He also justifies this by reading and quoting books that are published no later than 1987. In fact, one of the books is published in 1931. I think he's very narrow-minded, snobbish, and will not take any criticism (I know, he blocked my comments from being seen). The really sad part is that not only he has fans agreeing his him, he's also making and raising kids to believe his warped philosophy. His sources: The Encyclopedia of Photography: the Comprehensive Guide and Reference for all Photographers -Willard D. Morgan, 1967 Black and White Photography: A Basic Manual, 2nd Edition - Carol Keller, 1983 The Print, 1st Edition - Ansel Adams, 1968 Photography: Its Principles and Practice - C. B. Neblette, 1931 The Illustrated Dictionary of Photography - Adrian Bailey, 1987 Moderator Note: Images removed as per Photo.net Terms and Conditions and User Guidelines. Do not post images that you did not make.

<blockquote> <p>...film handles highlights much better. But I've always put that down to my own ineptitude with the medium.</p> </blockquote> <p>In my experience, slide film is a unforgiving beast. Overexpose it as much as a half a stop and it will blow out your highlights.</p>