That's it I'm done chasing technolgy...

I will say that the actual physical presence of the print is very important.

I went to the Leica gallery in Manhattan and looked at the Leonard Freed exhibit, and another exhibit where there were huge silver prints of a number of very well known photos that I had seen online or in books, but never "in person". Some of the liberation of Berlin, some by Russian photographers, and a good many others.

In the same way, I went to the Arbus and Avedon exhibitions at MOMA.

Seeing the actual large print is visceral. It makes a palpable impact on your senses and emotions. It cannot be transmitted via the web or in a small print in a book.

I think perhaps this may be the point of contention that some of you feel. It's valid, but it's not something that's inherent in the physical substrate of the image,
 
I think there's only one or two angry people here, and I'm not one of them. Read the thread more carefully.

The OP stated he no longer wanted to be on the price escalator of constantly buying the newest generation of digital, and that he realized he didn't really like digital.

Others either agreed or pointed out that you didn't have to buy the latest, most expensive to use digital.

This prompted tirades against digital and defense of using film.

jan normandale said:
I'm curious does anyone even remember what JimDE even posted? Or is this thread now totally OT.

This thread's combatants remind me of people who have been fighting so long they don't even remember why they are fighting any longer, they're just angry with the other guy ....
Click to expand...
 
I'm with you as well.

I'm with you as well.

Prosaic said:
Yes, right here.
Click to expand...

I now choose to chase "last years model" at a reduced price rather than stay on the "bleeding edge" as it were.

Now that the 40D is out, I'm thinking of looking a www.keh.com and see what I can get a 20D for.

I have played this game aready with PCs. I'm on maybe my 7th or 8th computer now over a 25 year period. I'm not about to repeat that with digital cameras, as long as I can get film. One can still use an old film camera to take photos, but I'm not about to replace my computer with an old typewriter and a slide rule.
 
I think they just filled in that Houston swimming pool with mud from the Grand Canyon and shot pictures with a Kodak Easyshare.
 
sitemistic said:
Perhaps ToyotaDesigner could link us to some photos that show the superiority of his images to digital. I would be interested in seeing them.
Click to expand...

digital/film debates or dick measuring contests (online, as always) seem to always include this challenge, yet this is clearly an unfair challenge. The better comparison for the film user would be to MAIL an actual contact print or enlargement for comparison to an inkjet print.
 
kevin m said:
I foolishly tried to sell a CRT computer monitor a couple of years back. It was a very good quality Sony monitor, so it must be worth something, right? I eventually took it to my town dump where it sat with many other computer monitors. Lord only knows where it eventually went....:(
Click to expand...

Ditto. I've got a pair of old CRT monitors, an obsolete Mac and a big homebrew PC tower sitting around taking up space because getting rid of them responsibly is such a pain.

This also illustrates what I think is the only really undebatable point in the digital vs film fuss: Digital hardware is made obsolete at a very fast rate. Not because the hardware stops working, but because software and standards inevitably change to take advantage of improved technology. That's especially true in regard to data exchange. Sooner or later, you start buying convertors and jumping through other hoops in an effort to keep your old hardware talking to the new hardware. For example, printers used to talk to computers via parallel ports. Now, they almost all use USB, and the incentive for PC makers to add a parallel port is gone.

Meanwhile, the price of non-leading edge tech continues to drop, so it's usually just as cheap to buy a new toy.

This is the dynamic that drives the rest of the world. I.e., the non-pro, non-camera-enthusiast 99 percent of the population who don't know a rangefinder from a floating point number. In that world, photos come in two forms: 1. Images on the web; 2. Prints from the drug store. The latter are likely made from a disposable camera used by someone who would like to have a couple hundred extra bucks to spend on a digital p&s so he could post to Flickr.

Me? I use expensive cameras to shoot slides that I scan into a Mac and view on a 20-inch screen and sometimes post to the web. Overkill on the camera side? Sure, but I know I'm not the only one.;)
 
Last edited:
sitemistic said:
Well, the photos are fine photos. But I wonder how often he prints these 5 feet wide? They just look like the kind of shots pros are doing every day with professional digital cameras.
Click to expand...

Please don't tease him!
 
sitemistic said:
I think he is the one doing the teasing. It appears he also shoots a digital p&s and old 35mm cameras, neither of which produce images comparable to 6x9 or 4x5 film cameras, a perfection he demands of digital slrs, yet he does not attack old 35mm cameras as inferior.
Click to expand...

Well, he's like Pavlov's dog: the word "digital" triggers his reflex to crusade for the blond eyed blue haired analog master race...:D
Yes, he uses digital p&s and by comparing the results of the Canon A620 with scans from negatives out of a Nikon FE2 claims the general superiority of film...
 
JimDE said:
Heck what i have spent and lost in digital SLR's I could of had a heck of a Leica system in my bags.

Anybody else tired of the digital merry go round?
Click to expand...

I have my Canon D60 for more than 5 years now, it still does what it did in April 2002. So who am I to complain?

On the other hand, I really like my G2.
 
toyotadesigner said:
OK Mr. Supernatural, show me some shots with your Can-Do-It-All-Better Cam with a rise, a Scheimpflug turn and a resolution of 12.900 x 8.900 pixels. But please QUICK, otherwise we will know you are just venting hot air (btw, you can post the whole image scaled down and then show us a crop - don't forget to mention the correct pixel dimensions and clearly mark the cropped rectangle please!).
Click to expand...

Sounds more like a top of the line LF camera than a $20 P&S to me.

On the other hand, a 24x36 SLR has some serious limitations compared to a Linhof Technikardan :)

But given the limitations on carry on luggage, I'll take the SLR with it's limitations.
 
Socke said:
But given the limitations on carry on luggage, I'll take the SLR with it's limitations.
Click to expand...

I haven't had any problem taking my 4x5" Linhof Technika V or 8x10" Gowland PocketView on a plane. Lately I tend to travel more with the Technika.
 
Al Patterson said:
Contax or Canon G2? ;)
Click to expand...


Believe it or not, a Canon Powershot G1 was the reason to buy the Contax G2 :D

And the Canon EOS D60 shortly after for my SLR needs.

I recently shot my 167MT with 135 Sonnar and 7mm extension ring to get a picture of the spider at my window, but the film is still in the camera :(

I think my next lens is a macro for the dSLR.
 
Errrr, I was making a joke about George Orwell.

I have no idea where you got any other ideas. In any case, "dicks" were not on MY mind.


Pherdinand said:
WHAT??
Ah i see now. It's the same old boring and stupid catalonia versus spain stuff. Who was there first, independence or dependence, who's language sounds better, who's girls are nicer, is a spanish dick bigger than a catalan dick.
Well, a dick is a dick right?

I am sorry to interfere with your little pathetic fight.
Click to expand...
 
David Goldfarb said:
I haven't had any problem taking my 4x5" Linhof Technika V or 8x10" Gowland PocketView on a plane. Lately I tend to travel more with the Technika.
Click to expand...


I prefer a Contax G1 and G2 and 28, 35, 45 and 90mm and TLA200.

Very handy and portable and all I need for what I want to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom