When digital just won't do... dark music venue.

<blockquote><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=426229">Marc Bergman</a>

<p>Do those of us who actually pay to keep Photonet running need to get a life?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Subscribe? To such abuse as to what has been given here by people that feel that they are objective but show no actual tribute to being so? Do you really not understand that the title was in reference to a specific time and place? Why the hell would someone actually pay for this kind of retort? Yes, get a life! Your experience with film and digital has absolutely nothing to do with this post. <strong>YOU WEREN'T AT THE SHOW, </strong>so you weren't the digi-shooter,w/ the particular equipment that wasn't working, he was referring to. Step off the high horse just because you paid the $24 a year to be here w/ your opinion. </p>

<p>Thread re-open</p>

<p>Patrick, don't take anything here personally. Like I said earlier, all you have to do is look at a person's posting history and usually you can pretty much tell what their motives are. I always have a great time hanging out in the Classic Cameras forum, especially with the regulars...you, Cliff Manley, Russ Rosener, Andy Collins, Rob Holz, and many others. I seriously wish that we could all meet in real life someday.</p>

<p>Don't take anything personally from one or two people who NEVER post in this forum, and mistake that as everyone jumping on your case. I'll say again too, by the way, that your pictures are awesome. </p>

<p>And don't anyone get me wrong...I have seen some beautiful pictures from digital cameras. In fact, some of my contacts and friends on Flickr have taken some great pictures with digital cameras. But my view is that in the Classic Cameras forum, and in the Film forums, we should have the right to talk up film and give our opinion freely.</p>

<p>Also, if Photo.net REALLY was a fair, open playing field where digital users and film users could co-exist in harmony...then why is it that if you go on the front page, everything you see is digital? Like "Building a DSLR system" and "Advice on Choosing a Digital SLR." You see reviews...but of course, they're all for DSLRs. Not one single mention of film. It's like film doesn't even exist. I just tonight saw an advertisement for Kodachrome in the "Popular Products" area...kinda late for that, isn't it? Josh has made efforts recently to make film shooters more welcome...but overall, Photo.net is heavily biased towards digital. So yes, film users are kind of defensive, and I feel it's because we have to be. </p>

<p>Anyway, I think I'm going to hang out with Cliff at one of those Film Tea Parties for a while. Keep posting, and keep shooting, Patrick. </p>

<p>Chris, I'm quite sure there is no bias from photonet as to who can advertise. If you pay the money , you get the banner. However there are simply not that many new film cameras or equipment out there to be sold, and the few that are, have likely determined that this is not the venue that will produce the most return for their advertising dollars. So you really can't confuse profitable marketing with a deliberate bias. The same for reviews, If there were something new out there pertaining to film, I'm sure they would be happy to have someone submit a review and it would be posted,</p>

<p>Let's all quit barking up the wrong trees, but keep barking up the right trees, namely the manufacturing companies, to keep the production of film and film products viable. This can only be done through sales. If people aren't buying, they can't afford to make it. Anyone new to film reading this type of quibbling rhetoric may say why bother with this stuff, they are just a bunch of loonies hanging on to the past, and never get to see or try out the true beauty of this medium.</p>

<p>The tea parties are really not a bad idea. To have some press coverage of a rally of film users would help the manufacturing companies take notice that people still want their products. That would in turn, increase their desire to advertise such products in a broader spectrum than company catalogs and trade journals.</p>

<p>[[To such abuse as to what has been given here by people that feel that they are objective but show no actual tribute to being so?]]</p>

<p>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Christ on a crutch, Jody, you need to take your meds.</p>

 

<p>The problem is that advertising is very expensive, and the companies that are still producing some film and related equipment are hanging on by the skin of their teeth and don't have the money to mass market these products. I'm sure if the money was spent to do so, the people would buy ( as they always do) what the are told to or enticed to buy. So it boils down to a money thing, like everything else. We need more people using film, and buying film. This will never be done by quibbling. I guess in the mean time we can think of ourselves as "film specialists". A dwindling breed of photographers that take pride in producing hand made products from real silver, gold, and platinum; using techniques that take some time and learning to master to produce truly outstanding artwork that will last throughout time, rather than be obliterated with a static discharge, and our equipment , with a little TLC and lube, will continue to operate throughout the next century.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=482130">Rob Bernhard</a><br>

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Christ on a crutch, Jody, you need to take your meds.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please try to quote me correctly, that comment was a question in reference to someone telling us we should pay/support the site. I'm asked why I would pay for the kind of abuse Patrick has been given.<br>

I also gave my opinions and explanations <strong>Two days ago, </strong> so hypocritical is not something I am feeling. I do, however, feel my opinions were objective, as they were <strong>"On topic"</strong> . So, pills taken, would you like me to send you some or can you make it to the cabinet yourself?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>profess pride in their 'antiquated' equipment while denouncing the ubiquitous modern ones. that's the nature of this forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not the "nature of this forum" at all. The whole point of THIS forum is that we can enjoy our nostalgic trips into a past period of innocence. Shoot and compare the cameras we wish we had then, and shoot and enjoy some we wouldn't have touched with a 3 meter pole at the time. Aside from occasional flareups when certain people refuse to acknowledge the historical fact that Praktiflexes had the first instant-return mirrors by a lead of about 10 years, we are pretty even tempered here and willing to live and let live. Let's save our vitriol here for each other, not the hordes of digital users (of whom many of us here are, if that makes any sense).</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Awesome JDM!</p>

<p>Sorry guys but I will stick with film cameras:) Here's shot from Yashica GSN with Kodak ISO 200 or 400 film, handheld. Sometimes, when it's really dark I just set camera for flash symbol (1/30 sec)...</p><div></div>

<p>Nice shots Patrick. Personally I prefer Tri-X pushed to 1250 and developed in Diafine for my club shots.</p><div></div>