Film vs digital forum

Oh, one additional point. I heartily agree with Mr. Ross' views. It's a trifle tacky to condemn anyone who joins the digital vs. film dispute as if they were "non-photographers," just testy persons with an ax to grind who enjoy arguing for arguing's sake. That is not the case with me or, I'm certain, many other thoughtful persons. But as I indicate above, the motive is at least partly clear. Mustn't offend the sellers of digital ware. What happens to revenue if they decide to invest ad budget elsewhere? Poor Mr. Spirer and company could go to bed hungry tonight unless that revenue keeps pouring in!

<i>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.</i><P>

This is not a "film vs. digital" thread; this is a thread about the need (or lack thereof) for a particular new

forum on photo.net. I suppose moderators and admins could completely ignore such threads instead of trying to

explain the rationale for not having such a forum; it would certainly save us time.<P>

 

<i>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. </i><P>

There are three forums on photo.net devoted entirely to film, a couple more devoted entirely to film cameras, and

many more where film and film cameras are also discussed. Photo.net has never done anything to discourage the

use of film or the discussion of issues related to film. Refusing to devote an entire forum to general

discussions of film vs. digital is certainly no indication that photo.net is "anti-film."<P>

The moderators at photo.net are unpaid volunteers. If photo.net ceased to exist tomorrow, it would have no

effect on my income, though it would increase the amount of free time I have. The paid staff at photo.net spend

most of their time keeping the site up and running and trying to improve the site's features. Considering Josh

Root has contributed <a href="http://www.photo.net/columns/joshroot/filmtown/2008/november/holga-kodak-BW400CN">the

first article</a> in new series about film cameras, it's ridiculous to accuse him of an anti-film bias. The idea

that photo.net is generating huge sums of money for anyone is pretty funny; it's certainly not making money for

Phil Greenspun, who hasn't been involved with photo.net for some time.<P>

 

Mr. Usary, note that, while you've had plenty to say about the "yahoos" who spoil film vs. digital debates, your

posts in this thread are filled with insults, inaccurate and negative characterization of the site's goals,

negative insinuations about other people's motives, etc. In other words, you've provided an excellent

demonstration of exactly the kind of behavior that makes most "film vs. digital" threads worthless.