ken_hughes4 Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 "Digital is cheaper for photographers who take pictures" sorry no, not all the time, I am a pro studio photographer and I don't shoot huge volumes of images...if I shot catalogs then that would be another story. It all depends on the individuals situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 It's good to see that Erwin is accepting some obvious facts for the new year. The year 2002, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Ken, if you don't value the time it take for you process, dry, cut, sleeve, scan and print (or go through iterations of prints) for b&w -- no to mention the accumulated costs/time for color film, processing scanning and/or printing -- then costs are lower than those who do value their time. But they are never lower for anyone who shoots even a moderate amount regularly, especially if you put a value on your time, especially for dealing with the time-consuming process and minutia of getting good scans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 <i><blockquote> You're dying, I'm dying.... Rocks die </blockquote> </i><p> Someone started their New Years festivities a little early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 <i><blockquote> As to Erwin's central point - that film photography is about capturing reality and that digital is somehow all about artistic manipulation - Oh, please </blockquote> </i><p> Absolutely, although you have to give him small credit for shouting fire in a room of flaming zealots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 So, let's keep it up. While everyone is out there in Virtual Land is worrying what's alive and what's dead tomorrow, the rest of the world is going, "Huh...?" about what Putz said. Does any of this "mean sh*t to a tree"? Jefferson Airplane said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 "...film photography is about capturing reality and that digital is somehow all about artistic manipulation." Oh, yeah. Right. Joel-Peter Witkin is, like, soooo digital. Christ, what dipsticks are out there. Keyboards should be registered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 I like film mostly, but I do use digital for P&S ease of use. As for now, Walgreen's carries tri-x, and a Calumet nearby has HP5 for $2.29/24 exp. I hope film doesn't die. I'll do my part by buying and shooting as much as I can. Other than that, I've nothing to add as arguments on both sides seem to have been rehashed many times. Can't we all just get along? Stop it with the snobbery already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claudia__ Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 film is dead. long live film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karl_keung Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 I believe one day, when the market stablizes, someone will start produce digital back for all the great film based camera, it is not all that difficult when you come to think of it. The love of film camera (those well made that is) is not the love of film, but rather the love of solidly made, all mechanical body, the labour of love and attention to details, those things carry an intrinsic value that those all plastic digital wonder will never have. A Casio G-shock and a Rolex Oyster can all tell time, but the Rolex carries with it something more. You come to admire what your other fellow human beings can achieve with their hands: a piece of art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmo Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Erwin is a putz. Long live film...no wait, I mean long live digital, no wait which one is better? Yeah, long live which ever one is better, long live digi above 800asa, long live film below. Then again I can always plug the digi into the plasma no matter what the rating, nah looks better on fiber...ahhhh F it...happy new year all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 "real cameras for real pictures" What on earth does that mean? Anyone got a real picture to show? I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_hicks1 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Dear Karl, Actually it IS that difficult when you come to think of it -- I know one manufacturer who dropped $250,000 before deciding it wasn't worth spending more on the problem. Cheers, Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_hicks1 Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Dear Another Bob, 'real cameras for real pictures' It's called humour. It's something we have in Europe. If you would like to see some of what I consider to be my 'real' pictures, try to find one of the 30-odd books I have written on photography, mostly with my wife Frances Schultz. Or look at our web-site, www.rogerandfrances.com, though of course the quality of an on-line image is completely different from (and usually much inferior to) a proper silver-halide print or even good-quality photomechanical reproduction. Cheers, Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Thanks for the explanation, Roger. Europe must be a pretty funny place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipling Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Especially those Germans. Known for their great SOH. Achtung! Ha ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karl_knize Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Kevin--- Well executed silver gelatin has a look that inkjet doesn't.. Not just tones, not just blacks -- depth, luminance, character. Having spent the money and done the homework with Cone Editions quadtone, profiles, calibration and endless screwing around to get monochrome output that's accurate, doesn't show a lot of metamerism, and resembles silver gelatin in some way, this is what I've come to believe. That it's about more than having a full tonal scale or being able to clone out that beer can that you should have seen in the first place. Or being able to to poorly expose a scene and then resurrect it in PS. I have no ill opinion of folks who output from desktop inkjet, and no ill opinion of inkjet in general other than the cost in regard to consumables. I can buy high quality 11x14 sensitized paper for $1 and coated rag for inkjet is $2. Go figure. I think Epson , Legion, Hahnemule and the rest are laughing all way to the bank. When it comes to color, I think inkjet comes into it's own. I don't miss C prints a bit, and like everyone else I love the contol over the output. It's a fabulous bit of technology. But when it comes to B&W, I don't think that inkjet droplets sitting on the surface of a sheet is the same, or the equal of silver halide that's been exposed to scattered light . It's not the equal and not as good. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl photography Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Another Bob, Roger's wife haunts my dreams. I mean it. Well, her photographs haunt me. Specifically, the ones made with her Linhof (whenever digicams achieve global mastery, I may finally be able to buy one on eBay without being shot by MY wife). A talented photographer with a talented wife, Linhof and Leica? Some men are quadruply blessed. No German cameras here, better go back to lurking....Happy New Year! "Brandon's Dad" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Well, I liked the one on the index page, but looked at a few of the galleries and they seemed extremely mediocre to say the least. Frankly, I can't imagine distinguishing between pictures on the strength of the cameras used to make them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Film, digital, I don't give a s**t...I'll be making pics either way. What's the big worry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_hicks1 Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Dear Another Bob, Can we see some of your pictures please? Cheers, Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 <a href="http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0204/city_index.htm">Here's a sample</a> of some of Another Bob's work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Roger - never mind me, just typical alpha maleism. I apologise. I remember some of your books from the eighties, I think my ex-wife even has one still on her bookshelf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl photography Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I also have some of 'em on my bookshelf. The Medium Format and Film books are my fav's. "Brandon's Dad" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_hicks1 Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Dear Another Bob, Apology gladly accepted. Very nice pictures too. Cheers, Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now