A crusade against film

[brian_mcintosh1]

Blimey, I think I took on too many respondants to keep up with.

 

I still don't see any sense of "joyous antagonism" in the photo-i report. The quoted "Who said film has better longevity than digital?" is just a play on one of the things said about digital, that its longevity is at best to be proved and is likely suspect. Would not the originator(s) of the "film has better longevity than digital" argument be the antagonists in such a scenario?

 

"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"

 

I agree with the first two sentences but Dixons decision isn't going to cheer those in the supply chain. The distributors and manufacturers have lost an outlet in most major towns in the UK for film cameras that is not going to be made good by any other retailer. It's got to have some impact.

 

Neil, I found myself mostly agreeing with your points about technology until the last line where you display the blinkered view that one (either film or digital) has to be better than the other. To take your comment "analog prints are strong, and digital prints are weak" at face value would be ludicrous. Couple that with the fact that there is so much overlap between the two in a lot of peoples workflow it makes little sense treating them as two separate disciplines.

[Spearhead]

Reading this, it seems that this is a crusade against the web site and its owner, much more than the web site is crusading against film. And nobody seems to want to defend the unsupported statements I pointed out, making it look even more like a crusade. So much for reality...

[neil_rankin1]

Brian, it was a joke...Jesus.

[ken_hughes4]

"analog prints are strong, and digital prints are weak"

 

what a bone-headed statement......

[andrew_morgan]

Tools for their purpose, horses for courses, use what makes you happy.

 

Go shoot some photographs all of you.

[brian_mcintosh1]

Jeff, I've done my best. You can pick up the banner and run with it now, I'm going to do as Andrew suggests.. go and shoot some photographers. Least I think that's what he meant to say :-).

 

Neil, ... 's okay then. I'm sure Vincent was joking too with his "Who said film has better longevity than digital?" It can be difficult to tell from the written word, even in context, sometimes.

 

Ah well it's been not so much a crusade, more like lemonade...lots of froth.

[lex_jenkins]

Jeff: Vincent Oliver is the author of "An Advanced Guide to Digital Photography," which he promotes on the photo-i website.

 

The site is nothing but unadulterated self-serving bullshit. I won't lend credibility to it by giving the guy more attention on this forum.

 

This thread will expire in one day.

[brian_mcintosh1]

"Jeff: Vincent Oliver is the author of "An Advanced Guide to Digital Photography," which he promotes on the photo-i website.

The site is nothing but unadulterated self-serving bullshit. I won't lend credibility to it by giving the guy more attention on this forum.

 

This thread will expire in one day."

 

 

Have you looked at the site? Properly? What arrogance to make such a sweeping statement, comfortable in the knowledge you can duck for cover behind expiring the thread. "The guy" didn't ask for any attention on this forum and yet stands accused of receiving it. I know bullshit when I see it, I suggest you go and wash your boots.

 

A crusade is nothing compared with gagging censorship. Free speech still has a place for some of us.

[ken_hughes4]

"A crusade is nothing compared with gagging censorship. Free speech still has a place for some of us."

 

 

no one is stopping you from running your own forum, so no censorship has ocurred.