Folks who cherry pick from the posts of others to try to create a false impression might consider what the result would be should someone do the same with what they have written in their own posts, including some in this thread.
(While you are at it, read the rest of the comments on the first page of the thread and perhaps my little attempt at humor will seem even more benign.)
Also from this thread, here is another "cherry-picked" excerpt that more fully — without the humor — describes my feelings about this subject, and which is consistently what I've said all along.
"I was infatuated with film photography as a kid and as a young man, and I continued to use it for decades. I am completely convinced that beautiful photographs have been made with film and that it is possible to continue to make them that way. But I'm equally convinced that work that is as good or better can be made using digital photography techniques, and I have no personal interest in returning to the old ways."
"At the same time, other landscape photographers I know who come from more or less the same "school," have adopted digital with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Quite a few made the switch much earlier, perhaps back around the time that 20MP full frame sensors became available Others were slower. Some moved partially to digital while still carrying their LF and/or MF film gear for a few shots. One friend continued to use MF film up until a year ago, but has also now switched. Another continues to use black and white LF film."
And... in another post someone attempted to equate film-users (in a demeaning way) with "holier-than-though hipster" poseurs shooting film because it is cool... and I defended them as a breed, (poking a bit of fun at myself) and pointing out that...
"Among those film-using hipsters there is some real talent, though the pose is easy to make fun of. But the same thing is true of, say, folks photographing birds, people restricting themselves to alt lenses, partisan users of Brand X/Y/Z, and on and on. Heck, I'm sure I fit into a few of those categories. (Bearded, no-longer-young guy with a tripod photographing landscapes. ;-)"
In the same post I complemented a film photograph appearing in the previous post.
"There will always be an interest in old processes and materials, and not just in photography. Some people are passionate about very old cars. Some actually build multi-track tape studios. There are musicians who specialize in using period instruments. I'm glad there are people who do these things."
"None of this is to say that if you prefer to use film that you should not. If you prefer film technologies, then by all means continue to use them. As I've written (so many times that I feel like a broken record) I used film for decades and I still have friends who are primarily film photographers, and they do beautiful work with film."
"That is a different question though than how film's prevalence in the overall world of photography has changed in the past 10-15 years or so, a period when it went from ubiquitous to an unusual thing for most people making photographs."
When the environmental issue came up, I wrote:
"Both film and digital cameras processes direct waste streams. Everything pretty much does, so we can't — at least as far as I can tell — have no environmental impact in our lives. The magnitude and type of effect are to be considered. "
It seems that any disagreement is too much for some, and that nothing short of perfectly innocuous writing (however that might be defined) and complete avoidance of any disagreement with them on any aspect of any subject will be sufficient. It is difficult to have a "discussion" under such rhetorical restrictions.
Sometimes I get the impression that some here feel that disagreement with their point of view equals contempt for them as people. It doesn't.
At the same time, I get the impression that some here are more interested in attacking the person who disagrees with them than in a) making a strong case for their own position, and b) accepting that others can hold a different point of view without taking it personally.
Folks who cherry pick from the posts of others to try to create a false impression might consider what the result would be should someone do the same with what they have written in their own posts, including some in this thread.
(While you are at it, read the rest of the comments on the first page of the thread and perhaps my little attempt at humor will seem even more benign.)
Also from this thread, here is another "cherry-picked" excerpt that more fully — without the humor — describes my feelings about this subject, and which is consistently what I've said all along.
"I was infatuated with film photography as a kid and as a young man, and I continued to use it for decades. I am completely convinced that beautiful photographs have been made with film and that it is possible to continue to make them that way. But I'm equally convinced that work that is as good or better can be made using digital photography techniques, and I have no personal interest in returning to the old ways."
"At the same time, other landscape photographers I know who come from more or less the same "school," have adopted digital with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Quite a few made the switch much earlier, perhaps back around the time that 20MP full frame sensors became available Others were slower. Some moved partially to digital while still carrying their LF and/or MF film gear for a few shots. One friend continued to use MF film up until a year ago, but has also now switched. Another continues to use black and white LF film."
And... in another post someone attempted to equate film-users (in a demeaning way) with "holier-than-though hipster" poseurs shooting film because it is cool... and I defended them as a breed, (poking a bit of fun at myself) and pointing out that...
"Among those film-using hipsters there is some real talent, though the pose is easy to make fun of. But the same thing is true of, say, folks photographing birds, people restricting themselves to alt lenses, partisan users of Brand X/Y/Z, and on and on. Heck, I'm sure I fit into a few of those categories. (Bearded, no-longer-young guy with a tripod photographing landscapes. ;-)"
In the same post I complemented a film photograph appearing in the previous post.
Sometimes I get the impression that some here feel that disagreement with them equal contempt for them. It doesn't.
At the same time, I get the impression that some here are more interested in attacking the person who disagrees with them than in a) making a strong case for their own position, and b) accepting that others can hold a different point of view without taking it personally.
Folks who cherry pick from the posts of others to try to create a false impression might consider what the result would be should someone do the same with what they have written in their own posts, including some in this thread.
(While you are at it, read the rest of the comments on the first page of the thread and perhaps my little attempt at humor will seem even more benign.)
Also from this thread, here is another "cherry-picked" excerpt that more fully — without the humor — describes my feelings about this subject, and which is consistently what I've said all along.
"I was infatuated with film photography as a kid and as a young man, and I continued to use it for decades. I am completely convinced that beautiful photographs have been made with film and that it is possible to continue to make them that way. But I'm equally convinced that work that is as good or better can be made using digital photography techniques, and I have no personal interest in returning to the old ways."
"At the same time, other landscape photographers I know who come from more or less the same "school," have adopted digital with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Quite a few made the switch much earlier, perhaps back around the time that 20MP full frame sensors became available Others were slower. Some moved partially to digital while still carrying their LF and/or MF film gear for a few shots. One friend continued to use MF film up until a year ago, but has also now switched. Another continues to use black and white LF film."
And... in another post someone attempted to equate film-users (in a demeaning way) with "holier-than-though hipster" poseurs shooting film because it is cool... and I defended them as a breed, (poking a bit of fun at myself) and pointing out that...
"Among those film-using hipsters there is some real talent, though the pose is easy to make fun of. But the same thing is true of, say, folks photographing birds, people restricting themselves to alt lenses, partisan users of Brand X/Y/Z, and on and on. Heck, I'm sure I fit into a few of those categories. (Bearded, no-longer-young guy with a tripod photographing landscapes. ;-)"
Sometimes I get the impression that some here feel that disagreement with them equal contempt for them. It doesn't.
At the same time, I get the impression that some here are more interested in attacking the person who disagrees with them than in a) making a strong case for their own position, and b) accepting that others can hold a different point of view without taking it personally.
Folks who cherry pick from the posts of others to try to create a false impression might consider what the result would be should someone do the same with what they have written in their own posts, including some in this thread.
(While you are at it, read the rest of the comments on the first page of the thread and perhaps my little attempt at humor will seem even more benign.)
Also from this thread, here is another "cherry-picked" excerpt that more fully — without the humor — describes my feelings about this subject, and which is consistently what I've said all along.
"I was infatuated with film photography as a kid and as a young man, and I continued to use it for decades. I am completely convinced that beautiful photographs have been made with film and that it is possible to continue to make them that way. But I'm equally convinced that work that is as good or better can be made using digital photography techniques, and I have no personal interest in returning to the old ways."
"At the same time, other landscape photographers I know who come from more or less the same "school," have adopted digital with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Quite a few made the switch much earlier, perhaps back around the time that 20MP full frame sensors became available Others were slower. Some moved partially to digital while still carrying their LF and/or MF film gear for a few shots. One friend continued to use MF film up until a year ago, but has also now switched. Another continues to use black and white LF film."
Sometimes I get the impression that some here feel that disagreement with them equal contempt for them. It doesn't.
At the same time, I get the impression that some here are more interested in attacking the person who disagrees with them than in a) making a strong case for their own position, and b) accepting that others can hold a different point of view without taking it personally.
Folks who cherry pick from the posts of others to try to create a false impression might consider what the result would be should someone do the same with what they have written in their own posts, including some in this thread.
(While you are at it, read the rest of the comments on the first page and perhaps my little attempt at humor will seem even more benign.)
Also from this thread, here is another "cherry-picked" excerpt that more fully — without the humor — describes my feelings about this subject, and which is consistently what I've said all along.
"I was infatuated with film photography as a kid and as a young man, and I continued to use it for decades. I am completely convinced that beautiful photographs have been made with film and that it is possible to continue to make them that way. But I'm equally convinced that work that is as good or better can be made using digital photography techniques, and I have no personal interest in returning to the old ways."
"At the same time, other landscape photographers I know who come from more or less the same "school," have adopted digital with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Quite a few made the switch much earlier, perhaps back around the time that 20MP full frame sensors became available Others were slower. Some moved partially to digital while still carrying their LF and/or MF film gear for a few shots. One friend continued to use MF film up until a year ago, but has also now switched. Another continues to use black and white LF film."
Sometimes I get the impression that some here feel that disagreement with them equal contempt for them. It doesn't.
At the same time, I get the impression that some here are more interested in attacking the person who disagrees with them than in a) making a strong case for their own position, and b) accepting that others can hold a different point of view without taking it personally.
Folks who cherry pick from the posts of others to try to create a false impression might consider what the result would be should someone do the same with what they have written in their own posts, including some in this thread.
Also from this thread, here is another "cherry-picked" excerpt that more fully — without the humor — describes my feelings about this subject, and which is consistently what I've said all along.
"I was infatuated with film photography as a kid and as a young man, and I continued to use it for decades. I am completely convinced that beautiful photographs have been made with film and that it is possible to continue to make them that way. But I'm equally convinced that work that is as good or better can be made using digital photography techniques, and I have no personal interest in returning to the old ways."
"At the same time, other landscape photographers I know who come from more or less the same "school," have adopted digital with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Quite a few made the switch much earlier, perhaps back around the time that 20MP full frame sensors became available Others were slower. Some moved partially to digital while still carrying their LF and/or MF film gear for a few shots. One friend continued to use MF film up until a year ago, but has also now switched. Another continues to use black and white LF film."
Sometimes I get the impression that some here feel that disagreement with them equal contempt for them. It doesn't.
At the same time, I get the impression that some here are more interested in attacking the person who disagrees with them than in a) making a strong case for their own position, and b) accepting that others can hold a different point of view without taking it personally.
Dan
Dec 27, 2016 at 04:47 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #13855769 « Could you go back to film? »
