mr._smith Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Some web site report news as it happens. Others go on a crusade. http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Some retailers are pushing digital becouse they make more money for each dollar invested in inventory and to keep you buying new stuff. You need a new digital when the 6 mega comes out and you only have a five. You need digi lenses as the film ones are too long a focal length and darken the corners. Then there is the latest and greatest printer of the week. Then the newest photoshop program which won`t run on your two year old computer. Now you will spend your life trying to find ways to archive your files as systems become obsolete and don`t work as advertised when you bought into them as new. It never ends. Everybody has their on your wallet. Pure BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 That website makes money selling digital products. It looks like a poor man's dpreview.com. Of course they're going to trumpet "the death of film" - hey, you too can get trapped on the buy a new camera/PC/software upgrade every year bandwagon! The bloke's name is Vincent Oliver. I can't see his portfolio on that site. Enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian_Edwards Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 This is the my favorite section: "...perhaps now is a good time to consider selling your surplus gear..." Just who is this guy, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_sauer Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 I just printed my first b&w MF negs from a Minolta Autocord 6x6 circa 1956. Digital, for me, is now a Polaroid or a snapshooter. Film is far from dead. Even in my hastily shot amateur demo roll, I see more tonal gradations, shadow detail, and just plain character than I've ever seen out of my D100. I paid $135 for this camera -- less than any digital p&s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_goody Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 <p><i>> "...perhaps now is a good time to consider selling your surplus gear..."</i></p> <p>Yes. To me :-D</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 <i>That website makes money selling digital products.</i><p> Other than some fairly common affiliate agreements, like Amazon's, there don't see to be any products being sold, digital or not. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pics Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 The more vocal so called "professionals" with blogs, book deals and gallery appearances have alot invested in digital imagery and it is in their best interest to convince the general public that film is indeed dying and no longer a viable photographic medium. The sooner they can do this the sooner their medium of choice gains acceptance with many people who are sceptical of digitally generated, assembly-line processed images. To each his own but one would be better off ignoring these types. I mean why else would someone so joyously proclaim the death of film when the U.S. equivalent of Circuit City decides to stop selling 35mm cameras? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustys pics Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 That's guy's website is awful from a design and usability standpoint. He's not going to win many converts until he masters basic html. And, a lead picture of a French Mime? No one will take that seriously. But, whatever he enjoys shooting, more power to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juergenf Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 A radio report this afternoon stated that all Dutch Dixons stores will also stop selling 35mm cameras as soon as they're out of stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelkh Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Ah, Vincent. He rarely fails to over-egg the pudding. I could not care less that Dixons are no longer selling 35mm cameras. They could no longer sell anything and I would not bat an eyelid. The point here is, of course digital is going to eclipse 35mm on the high street, but why should we care? As all the high street suppliers go, we will instead be fed by suppliers whose business does not depend on clinging onto a dying market, but rather on growing a new art-oriented one. Few, if any of us, in this forum would ever have found the kind of service we want in a Dixons anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 The funny thing is, "serious" photographers wouldn't shop in Dixons, except maybe duty free, for the simple reason that Dixons is expensive relative to a "pro" dealer. Dixons and Jessops sell to people who aren't serious enough about photography to shop around, who just want high-street convenience. Which is fine, in and of itself. But it means they're selling digital cameras costing hundreds of pounds to people who would only spend a few tens of pounds on film and processing anyway, by telling them that it's "cheaper". Who would willingly shop in a store whose entire business model is conning people? It's not about film vs digital. It's about value for money and getting the shot you want. Dixons and Jessops, avoid like the plague! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juergenf Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Years ago, I bought a simple APS film camera at Dixons with a f/6.0 25mm lens or something. There staff suggested 100 speed film would be fine...........in autumn.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_rankin1 Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Digital systems are not worth the investment for me. I enjoy the darkroom so much, and analog prints seem stronger to me. Don't be fooled by marketing ploys like this..."jump on the bandwagon so you can produce images like every one else, or else..." The digital craze may, in fact, help film users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 <i>The more vocal so called "professionals" with blogs, book deals and gallery appearances have alot invested in digital imagery and it is in their best interest to convince the general public that film is indeed dying and no longer a viable photographic medium.</i><p> Which "so called 'professionals" are these? Can you give some examples?<p> I never got an answer on where all the digital product selling is on that website, maybe I'll get one on this. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_rose3 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 It's kind of ironic when you consider his site is one of the few sites left that still does in-depth reviews on scanners. Which in a sense shows film's continued usefulness in a digital work flow. I for one appreciate that he does review scanners and I look forward to the next one. EricR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_mcintosh1 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 It's ALL photography guys. I have no reason to defend Vincent Oliver but I would like to redress some of the insanity that creeps in when film and digital are mentioned in the same sentence. I have visited the photo-i site many times over the years and can honestly say it does not appear to me to be a site crusading against film. His latest report on the decision by Dixons starts by giving the news item and ends with a bit of comment on his own recent actions. "This is the my favorite section: "...perhaps now is a good time to consider selling your surplus gear...Just who is this guy, anyway?" He prefaces the comment with "if you have cameras collecting dust". So just what is wrong by stating that? He's sold his, he thinks it could be an idea for others to do so if they are not going to use their old gear again. Radical eh? Who is the guy? Well we can't all know everbody else so it's quite likely that his presence in the world hasn't been revealed to you until now. That does nothing to lessen his right to have a website and pass on information and comment. He's written books on digital photography, he has carried out reviews of equipment on his site and worked as a photographer in both the film era and digital for many years. Who are you? See it works both ways. "That website makes money selling digital products. ....I can't see his portfolio on that site. Enough said." As has been pointed out he doesn't sell anything, he has no stock, he has an affiliate arrangement with Amazon. He's not secretive about it, he asks for people to support photo-i by purchasing through Amazon. Some will, some won't, there's no coercion involved. The site isn't about his photography, probably why you don't see a portfolio of his work. I fail to understand the significance of the "enough said" comment. Do you mean if he can't impress you with the pictures he takes he has no right to an opinion? I've seen some sites where the information is very useful and shows a huge knowledge of photography and things such as photoshop, colour calibration etc. Some of these have had portfolios of work which to my eye are quite mediocre, it didn't cause me to downgrade the other site content. "To each his own but one would be better off ignoring these types. I mean why else would someone so joyously proclaim the death of film" Some of us know which types to ignore without being told. Please explain the "joyously" part of your assertion. "That's guy's website is awful from a design and usability standpoint. He's not going to win many converts until he masters basic html." I confess to no great skill at HTML, I wouldn't know "good" HTML from "bad" HTML. I can however click on the buttons and go to the intended page and it all seems to work as designed. so usability doesn't seem a problem. Design, well who's to say, chances are I wouldn't like your home decor but that wouldn't mean you aren't happy with it. Check out the forums, he seems to have won quite a few "converts" already even without mastering "basic HTML". (Would the site work if it didn't have basic html?) Strangely, going right back to the beginning, the response to the article on his website in this thread has been more of a "crusade" against the messenger than ever the item was intended to be. The notion that a life of crime is not for me is reinforced, I should hate to be at the mercy of a jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr._smith Posted August 10, 2005 Author Share Posted August 10, 2005 He's at it again. Now he's asking this to his followers: "Any guess's on the next bit of bad news for film user's?" He is on a crusade against film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pics Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Some of us know which types to ignore without being told. Please explain the "joyously" part of your assertion. Brian McIntosh Brian I certainly see a sense of joyous antagonism in Vincent Oliver's statement and numerous similar statements by others like him. The fact of the matter is that certain digital photographers in "higher" places seem as though they are "winning" something through the demise of film. I don't see any comments by film photographers on how Kodak pulling out of the digital market signals the death of digital or any kind of moral victory. (Except as a comical response to the 100th film is dead thread.) Frankly I'm tired of seeing these Nostradamus like predictions from Bloggers, and contributors to book stand photo mags only to see that they have numerous photoshop and Digital "how to" guides available in Barnes and Noble or they happen to be selling a book with all digital photos or pushing an all digital gallery of theirs. Their new catch phrase should be "Its all about the final image and achieving it OUR way" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_hughes4 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 I am amazed anyone even cares what goes on with this dinky little website?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_bergman1 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 "I certainly see a sense of joyous antagonism in Vincent Oliver's statement and numerous similar statements by others like him." How about some quotes? How about posting some links? I would love to read them and respond to the writers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_warburton Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Dixons isn't exactly a photographic retailer. It's the last place I would consider going to buy a camera. Their decision to stop selling film based cameras shouldn't worry anyone who is interrested in photography, except that the media would have us believe this is evidence that film is dead. Long live film, and digital too I expect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 There is no-one worse than a convert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_rankin1 Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Brian said "It's ALL photography guys." So what. That's not the point. We're talking about technology and marketing here. Even more than population growth, technology has had a more profound effect on this planet than anything in history. Technology progresses in a free market on the whims of capital and marketing, chaotically, without any forethought to a products intrinsic value or effects...only the products marketability is considered. People will market there work however they can if there smart. This guy preaches digital because he shoots digital. I preach film because I shoot and print film. As it should be. I had a photo mentor in high school tell me he was more impressed when a photographer could show work and not say anything about it. Just let the print speak for itself. Strength is strength...weakness is weakness. And until I see different, analog prints are strong, and digital prints are weak. Ha. Ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pics Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 "How about some quotes? How about posting some links? I would love to read them and respond to the writers." Marc Bergman Marc, the originator of this thread has already provided the link and in it next to the part about Dixon's axing film cameras, you will find this: "Who said film has better longevity than digital?" Took me all of about 2 seconds to find it. I mean I could care a less what this guy has to say but how can you see that as anything but antagonistic. I'm not going to sit here and research links for you to check out but this is only a micrososm of a larger attitude out there. So can I expect you to write a letter to this guy giving him hell!? 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