Film vs digital forum

I think a darkroom would be much more fun than photoshop for sure. It would be a great hobby but with kids in college I cannot afford another big hobby. But the real fun in photography for me is not the camera type or things to buy for it but rather it's the going places and getting out of the house. On the what is cheaper thing I figure there are many way to add it up. For me the least expensive thing to do is not buy more stuff. I do not make ink prints myself so cartridges are not an expense. I usually have prints made at CostCo or Mpix.com..However I just make prints when I have a need for them..

The American cars were pretty good back in the day but for me I need reliability and fuel efficiency these days...I have a Civic that works out great. It's never needed a repair so far and gets 38mpg on the highway which is nice for driving to Yosemite, Big Sur and places that I go to take pictures. My next car will probably be one with more technology like a Prius or something like that. I think the American cars are more interested in SUV's, big trucks and stuff which I don't want even for free. When the kids were growing I had a series of MinnieVans. They were real expensive with continuous repairs, brake jobs and poor milage. I don't want that again, that's for sure.

Fix Or Repair Daily.

 

Yeah, Ford vs. Chevy, those were interesting times. In my experience, they were a walk in the park compared to the tubes vs. transistors war. I think that one's over. Not sure, though, and if it is I don't think anyone won. Nor is anyone who sees film vs. digital as a war likely to "win".

(FWIW, I'm probably the scary moderator Michel was referring to.)

 

Wow, Michel, my banhammer guy really spooked you? I thought he was kinda funny. I notice you weren't too

spooked to ask a relevant question about b&w technique, and you are absolutely welcome to do so there. We

appreciate your company and input on topical discussions.

 

Seriously, tho', persuade me. I'm open to suggestion. Keep in mind that the b&w forums have long accommodated

relevant discussions of digital techniques such as tips for scanning b&w film, which presents unique challenges.

We also discuss hybrid techniques, such as creating inkjet transparencies for contact printing onto light

sensitive paper (not necessarily silver gelatin, since there are other processes). Those are relevant hybrid

techniques. We do not give advice about which scanner to buy or which inkjet printer to buy. Want to know which

software best emulates Tri-X from digital captures? Nope. Those are relevant to the Digital Darkroom forum.

And we're not getting into pointless, no-win arguments about which medium is superior because it's absolutely

irrelevant. You might as well try to convince a painter that he should switch to sculpture because it's "more

lifelike". If you can't see the fallacy inherent to these debates, then you don't have any business even

entering the discussion. We choose the medium we prefer for the love of the process. Period. Everything else

is false.

 

And for the record, I use film and digital. Have for years. I was doing digital editing for graphic arts

departments almost 20 years ago. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever separating the two and staying

respectfully on topic on other forums here on photo.net or elsewhere. It's about learning to compartmentalize

discussions to keep each forum relevant.

 

Convince me in a cogent, coherent statement why digital versus film debates are even remotely relevant or useful

to the b&w film photography and printing forums. You'll have an easier time trying to persuade the moderator of

a cooking forum why Adobe Lightroom is superior to quick rise yeast in an Oster bread maker.

 

BTW, I'd strongly suggest you first review the hundreds of previous F v. D threads containing tens of thousands

of comments. Then come back and tell me you actually have a unique perspective that nobody else in the history

of photo.net has ever thought of before. You can start with the two already in progress on the generic Film &

Processing Forum, where one argument has reached nearly 1,000 posts, many of which are insults, flames, trolls

and the worst kind of behavior I've ever seen on this website. And you want me to poison the well on the b&w

forums with the same crap?

 

And if you do a search you'll find that earlier this year I did entertain two simultaneous F v. D threads on the

b&w forums. They fell into the usual pattern of jaw-flapping, resolved absolutely nothing and most of the

participants and comments came from folks who rarely, if ever, contribute anything remotely relevant to the b&w

forums. They were party crashers who heard there was an open house with free booze. They got drunk, barfed in

the corners and left a mess for us to clean up. Then some of 'em had the audacity to gripe about me closing the

threads after a few days.

 

One of 'em even had the gall to troll the b&w film forum at close to midnight just before the Thanksgiving

holiday, after having previously received respectful treatment and informative replies to his questions about b&w

film and techniques. These people don't contribute anything but grief, but are quick to whine about their

"rights" and "democracy" simply because I did my job, trying to keep the clubhouse clean and orderly for the

actual members.

 

I owe it to our longtime, valued contributors and newcomers interesting in the craft of b&w film photography and

related issues to provide a hospitable environment for relevant discussions. That's what the b&w forums are for.

Being banned from photo.net certainly would not be the end of the world. I have seen some awesome work and articles from banned people, so it can't be too bad, sure it is not as bad as my last divorce. I do looks at prior reviews and very seldom post questions, because I do reviews. But some thing happens when a similar question is posed, we have new contributors with some times different perspective. Watch out for the hammer, he did say he was sick on that day:)

Michel I'm with you on this one. I find reasonable rational discussion on the merits film or digital both educational and interesting. As someone who uses both, appreaciates the strengths and weaklesses of both and doesn't have any particular bias towards either method (Accept for some particular applications) I see nothing wrong with these types of discussions as long as the participants are civil towards each other and remain open minded. The trouble is you usually get one or two or three participants with an axe to grind who hijack these sort of threads and it becomes a tit for tat mud slinging match, ruining what might of been an interesting thread for everyone else. And like others have already said some people take an almost religious of political stance on the whole thing. Its a shame really.

I had Fords in the 60's, Chevy was King, the baddest car in town was a nova with a 427 that is until a Dodge with a 426 Hemi beat the hell out of it. Those were the good old days, now we argue about cameras:)

You folks forgot Mac vs PC, and I can't believe no one mentioned Jeep?

I still hold out hope for film, although I suspect that we may all be forced into special order and bulk loading within a decade. I suppose die-hards can always prep their own emulsions and use wet-plate technique... although I don't think I care to get that retro.

I agree with Lex about some of the comments on Pnet are sarcastic, insults,etc. I do feel that Lex does a great job with the huge task he has.

There are folks who use both technologies; and sometimes a mixture of both at once. Thus one might have shot film for decades; then digital for 1 decade; then got back somewhat into film "just for fun". ie one might dabble back into pushing tri-x and scanning film and wonder what combo works best for the hybrid scheme. With a pure film or pure digital forum one is basically damning folks who use a hybrid approach; since neither frum would want them anymore. Sort of the same thing happend before the classical forum was around. I posted how to scan 116/616 on then new Epson 2450 scanner and neither the MF or LF boards wanted the bastard format to be discussed; ie old 116/616. <BR><BR>One of the reasons some folks defected and started the APUG site was they could not stand any mention of a digital topic on photo.net; but whats weird is now folks at APUG have fellowed somewhat; a digital coment doesnt get axed in a nanosecond as being wrong. <BR><BR>One also has the issue that dumb C41 drug store processing is mostly no longer optical; they scan it then print the digital image. Ths like it of not the bulk of film shot in the USA is printed digitally

<BR><BR>

Its kind of interesting how photo.net has evolved. <BR><BR>Long ago when the Leica board was on the Greenspun board few Lieca users could tolerate any discussions of a non Leica lens; or non Leica body. Thus asking about a 5cm F2 Nikkor in LTM or a 50mm F1.2 Canon in LTM was abit SUPER taboo; or asking about the then new Bessa R; or fun 15mm VC lens in LTM. The really weird thing is Leica made a subset of all LTM lenses;<b> the minority; </b>and about very lens maker in the world once made LTM lenses. Thus a question about a 5cm F2 Nikkor in LTM would be either axed or moved to the Nikon forum; then purists there would complain that the 5cm F2 question should be in another forum; like Leica or other cameras. This kicking out of comments was about Zorkis and Feds too; this made the old yahoo groups Russian camera group be a safe haven to discuss Russian LTM cameras and non Leica LTM lenses; since this less pure non Leica stuff could be discussed without fear of being deleted; mocked; critized; badgered. Later the yahoo groups morphed into the beststuff forum on Russian gear. Today the Leica group has fellowed out alot; its ok to talk about a Espon Rd-1 since there is now a Leica digital the M8.<BR><BR>In the LF forum it was once abit taboo to talk about digital; even stuff like my old 1996 35 megpixel scan back for LF was once considered off topic; since it wasnt film. With the LF board there is abit of snobbery against press cameras; even if they have shot the vast majority of LF negatives; even if one can start off with a 250 buck speed graphic with a 127mm lens and make a tack sharp 16x20 or 20x25 inch print. <BR><BR>A begineer will ask a qustion for a starter camera and the bulk of folks will have the chap into a 4000 buck LF rig; and they have never even shot one 4x5 piece of film yet; or loaded a film holder yet!. <BR><BR>The same thing happens in ham radio boards and during rag chewing or swap meets like TRW.. A begineer will ask what SW radio; some of us might answer say a 250 buck used Icom 735 barefoot 100 watt rig; THEN old farts will preach get a Ten-Tec; a 240 volt 1.5Kw Linear; a giant tower; ie spend 5 grand to 10 grand. One might think that in dying fields like LF or ham radio folks would want younger blood to enter; and not recommend a 5 grand old mans dream rig as a starter unit. <BR><BR>

Kelly, I have noticed that whenever someone wants a camera suggestion, so many people seem to say that "First look at the price tag." Then, buy the most expensive. Once,a person wanted a TLR under a certain price range. There were several comments that suggested a Rollei 2.8 camera. I looked on KEH, and their prices were alot more than the OP wanted to spend. I don't know about LF being a dying field, though. Just a few short years in Shutterbug, they made a comment that LF sales are increasing.

I applaud the idea of a "film v. digital" forum. The issue, which is worth ongoing discussion, usually is consigned to the "Casual Conversations" forum, where the yahoo crowd gather and quickly reduce any attempt to discuss the matter seriously to epithet hurling (if you're "pro-film," you're almost inevitably going to be denominated "moron" or "idiot" by the fifth post or so). Perhaps giving its own, closely moderated forum would filter out some of the nonsense that usually crops up.

I can't think of a more useless forum. My experience has been that photographers spend almost no time discussing this, but forum dwellers find it immensely entertaining. There are far more pertinent issues for <i>photographers</i>, and they get discussed, but not on "film vs digital" threads. <p><i>if you're "pro-film," you're almost inevitably going to be denominated "moron" or "idiot" by the fifth post or so</i><p>Please cite the threads on which this is happening.<p>As this thread so visibly proves, the idea of "vs" is much more interesting to some people than anything having to do with photography. There are plenty of other sites to get into "vs" conversations. Maybe those would be better utilized by people who enjoy "vs" threads such as "film vs digital."

<i>The issue, which is worth ongoing discussion, usually is consigned to the "Casual Conversations" forum, where

the yahoo crowd gather and quickly reduce any attempt to discuss the matter seriously to epithet hurling</i><P>

It's moved to the Casual Conversations forum <b>because</b> general discussions of film vs. digital attract that

yahoo crowd. As I noted in my earlier post, if you have questions about the relative benefits of film and digital

for a particular use or situation, it should be posted in the forum most-closely related to that use. There, it

is more likely to attract the attention of people who have actual experience with the issues involved. If it

were posted in a "Film vs. Digital Forum," it would attract the attention of people who are primarily interested

in arguing about film. vs. digital.<P>

<i>(if you're "pro-film," you're almost inevitably going to be denominated "moron" or "idiot" by the fifth post

or so)</i><P>

I see this complaint posted about thirty times more often than I see an actual attack on film users. I've

encountered far more "pro-film" folks jumping into discussions about digital and trying to derail them than I

have the converse.

<i>"...the idea of "vs" is much more interesting to some people than anything having to do with

photography..."</i><p>

 

Jeff nailed it. The forum warriors aren't interested in photography. They're only interested in taking an

adversarial position on any topic. It's about the <i>versus</i>, not about the topic. It's about creating false

conflict where none exists or needs to exist.<p>

 

The reason I've plugged in a "bozo filter" on the b&w forums that flags the abbreviation of versus and reminds

people to reconsider is because I don't want false conflicts inflicted on an intelligent forum. It's intended to

make people think before posting. Is there really an adversarial factor in a decision to choose between one film

and another? Between one development technique and another? No. It's a thinking person's choice, based on

information. It's not another tedious false conflict.<p>

 

And in my experience so far, the people who have been offended by this reminder to choose their words more

carefully are precisely the types who *need* to slow down, stop and think for a moment. They're a little too

excitable, too ready to take offense where none was offered. They're the folks who need to be reminded that

there is no adversarial position between D-76 and HC-110, between Tri-X and HP5+, so the "versus" concept has no

place in an intelligent conversation when considering the merits of multiple approaches to solving a problem -

the problem being, getting good results.<p>

 

And please don't trot out that trite excuse that "vs." is a convenient abbreviation. It requires three

characters; two if you skip the period. The more appropriate word, "or", also requires only two characters.<p>

 

The only "versus" I'm interested in involves boxing. And I usually confine my digressions on that topic to the

appropriate boxing forums around the web.

The concept of "vs" is at the very core of the law and politics, not to mention forensics (and to some extent, science and engineering). The ability to argue convincingly on either side of an issue is the basis of competetive debate. In the adversarial system, it is customary to present one's strong points and point out the weaknesses in the opposing arguments.

 

Unfortunately, the real arguments are largely contained in the first 10 posts or so. The remaining 800 can be considered "dieseling" (for those of us old enough remember carburators).

I wonder if a forum for Film v Digital with allsuch posts in it would cause them to disappear from elsewhere - not a prophesy to bet on I think!

I like the film vs digital topics. I guess there is not much point to them but I don't see much point to any other posts out there really. Some people ask questions about this or that and sometimes they get a good answer but not usually. I think film is great myself. I don't shoot it anymore but I like it fine. I moved on to digital because there are no labs around and no film for sale (tried mail processing and did not like it). I think a person should just do what is fun and interesting to them in their hobby. Well today is a golf day so the camera stays in the bag.

I think a better idea would be a Film and Digital forum.

 

It would be for those of us that added film scanners and digital cameras to our film darkrooms. It would be for those of us who have gone beyond any film vs digital, slides vs negatives, color vs black & white, or Ford vs Chevy arguments.

 

It is all about photography. Well, not the Ford vs Chevy. But since we are talking about cars, have you noticed that those that argue the most in general have the least performing cars. They probably couldn't break 15 seconds in the quarter mile. They would be better off putting their efforts into making their cars better whether it has a Ford or Chevy nameplate than having their asses handed to them from someone driving a Honda Accord.

I think Mr. Ingold got the gist of it. Spirited debate is about the only thing of interest left on this site. The rest is trivia, technobabble, often poorly answered queries from self-described "newbies," and the music goes round and round. No, I am assuredly not one of the ubiquitous Mr. Jenkins' "forum warriors." But I do thrive on a good, substantive argument now and again. It is difficult to carry one of those off where the film/digital issue is concerned because the obsessive digiheads, deeply invested in their cybernetic junk piles (and spending ever more in an ultimately futile effort to keep up with the "dude" down the block and to beat the planned obsolescence game), come back with visceral, mindless malarkey (e.g., "I guess you want to go back to the horse and buggy, you moron"). A carefully moderated forum on this subject, set apart from "Casual Conversations" and a couple of other fora where the chronic soreheads habitually come calling, would be a felicitous addition to this site.

There is no need for a film vs digital forum on photo.net. Real photographers don't have an issue with either medium. Those arguments have as much of a home here as they need to. Which is to say, only a small one in Casual Photo Conversations.

 

Fighting about film and digital is a waste of time. If people want to waste their time arguing about it, that's fine by me. But photo.net isn't going to make them a permanent little home for the debates. If you want that, start "filmvsdigital.com" and have shouting matches to your heart's content.

 

Digital is cool, film is cool. Just go shoot some photos, okay?

<i>I don't see much point to any other posts out there really</i><p>I find this comment hard to fathom, and maybe typical of the people who like "vs." For example, today we have posts near the top about:<i><p>Backing up from Lightroom<p>How to work with wedding planners<p>Making the shutter work on an old Russian rangefinder<p>Lighting set up.</i><p>Now maybe your problem is that you don't see much point to useful posts and would prefer a pointless "vs" debate non-stop. The posts I've referenced above, and many others, are about people getting help with their photography, not engaging in useless web debates. I know, strange concept, but if you take the time to read the "About Us" section, you will find this:<p><i>We started in 1993 and strive to be the best peer-to-peer educational system for people who wish to become better photographers. </i><P>That seems like a straightforward objective that has nothing to do with sitting around madly typing away in a pointless debate. Pointless debate is much more appropriate for usenet, check it out.

Film versus Digital discussions in a weird sort of way are interesting to me since they are like a "echo" of what happened 15 to 20 years ago in process camera work. Now that old discussion is moot since I cannot buy any film for the old process camera beast. This passing occured when DOS was used on PC's; and "windows" didnt exist yet. Thus its interesting to read how folks think "digital versus film" is really new; when its older than Photo.net in the repro/process/printing industry.<BR><BR><b>Most Photographers have "risen above" worrying about silly "Film vs digital" debates eons ago</b> <BR><BR>There is no need to make a new forum just for an ancient debate. Most of the time the debates are a waste of time; sometimes they are actually really comical as a work break!<BR><BR>Look at another creative field like architecture; many folks still hand sketch with flimsy/bumwad/sketch paper and make foam core models and then use CAD once ideas are molded; ie they use a blend of manual drafting and CAD; and often do not fart around saying has to use only one medium because its better. <BR><BR>In printing I have noticed that customers that have extreme issues with one medium over another and dwell on it *tend* to produce a lower quality image or design.<BR><BR>Lighting is extremely important in photography but gets little if any discussion on photo.net .

You have a point Jeff, there are probably some valuable posts. My experience is sometimes different. I wonder why you are posting in a "vs" thread when you have such low opinions of the photographers that do post in a thread of this nature. So tell us Jeff, Why do you post and insult here? Do you think you should "ban" yourself for your behavior or should you "ban" me because I gave my opinion politely and challenge your rudeness. Yes, The film vs digital threads are interesting to me. I value those opinions that I have read and I would say that they have in some way helped me to accept digital. That and my camera club (real world) that I belong to.

I do not engage in "shouting matches" over anything here, that is, unless someone starts shouting at me. I have read

many thoughtful posts on this subject from time to time; evidently, the yahoos must have been sleeping during these

times (probably at about 2:30 p.m.) and hadn't roused themselves sufficiently to spoil a decent interchange with

personal insults accompanied by the "how dare you pile on the Great Cybergod, you imbecile" (though "imbecile" is

usually misspelled by these masters of lingual sophistication; thus they prefer 'moron,' 'idiot,' or even 'pig'). Mr. Spirer

must be too long in the tooth to have mastered "GenZerospeak."

 

I expect even the "Film and Processing" forum to disappear from here ere long. Take a careful look at the ads that

pop up on this site these days. The Big Three who imposed digital on the world, plus innumerable other purveyors of

digital product (regardless of how obscure its uses). As in other contexts, he who has the gold makes the rule.

Somebody has to pay Messrs. Spirer and Root, after all, and fatten Mr. Greenspun's no doubt bulging coffers.

 

Finally, Mr. Spirer suggested in as many words that I somehow "imagine" epithet-hurling occurring in these things. I

recall a seemingly endless thread that he moderated about a year ago, which transmogrified improbably into another

spate of personal insults from the cybergeeks. "Moron." "Idiot." "Pig." "Ignorant." Just a few exempla of the lingual

level that lengthy thread reached. Mr. Spirer, as I recall, injected himself into the fray and seemed blithely

unconcerned about the Visigoths and their lingo. A la recherche du temps perdu, old boy.