How about a moratorium on analog trolling?

S

squirrel$$$bandit

Veteran
Local time
8:59 AM
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
6,249
View My Gallery
It seems as though, in the wake of any digicam announcement that people get excited about (e.g, X100), there is always a sharp increase in the number of people who feel it necessary to say that they don't need the fancy new whatever because their Barnack or what have you is still working great, etc. etc.

May I suggest that this is pretty much straight-up trolling? The excellence of your film camera is not relevant in a discussion of new digital photography products. I say this as someone who loves vintage and analog tech, and shot and developed film for many years. Comments like these are the equivalent of dropping by a sports forum to announce that sports is stupid and that people should read books instead. Your love of film is not relevant. It is a legitimate thing to feel, and worth talking about when the topic is, in fact, film photography, but in the context I'm describing it is the equivalent of holding up a big sign that says I AM DEEPLY INSECURE AND FEEL THREATENED BY THINGS I DON'T UNDERSTAND. It makes you look like a jerk, and makes other people feel beleaguered and exasperated.

Let us add to this the fact that the film vs. digital debate is over. People don't actually debate it anymore. Digital won, and film now occupies a small, devoted, and one hopes semi-permanent, niche among photographers. Arguing how great it is compared to digital now feels akin to rehashing the 2004 Bush-Kerry debates. It gives other people an instant headache, and is entirely beside the point.

Film lovers, talk about the stuff all you want. I agree, it is awesome. But stop going out of your way to douse other people's enthusiasm. You are not better than they are. Your aesthetic sensibilities are not superior. You are not necessarily better photographers, or more refined in your personal tastes.

Thank you.

[/rant]
 
Well said and very true ... when someone is banging on about their film M or Barnack or analog whatever, no one ever seems to barge in to tell them that they couldn't give a sh!t because their digicam rings all their bells and they don't need no stinkin' analog camera.

Sometimes it doesn't bother me but other times it really sucks!
 
Last edited:
If they did it with a little humour or irony I could deal with it but they never do ... they're always so damned dour and serious about it.
 
Hear, hear!

I think there is a place for discussions of which media is better for a certain kind of job–more dynamic range in film b&w, for example–with room for disagreement, but in the same way as one likes a leica and tri-x, while another prefers nikon and hp5. I see a lot less condescension and shouting down in those threads than in anything about digital.
 
Last edited:
I agree, but can we also agree to not use the word analog? Or maybe first check the definition of the word before using it. Just kidding, mostly. 😛 not specifically targeting the OP. 🙂
 
Every single person on this forum knows what I mean by "analog" in this context. I do not require a peer-recommended review of its precise definition. Although I'd be happy to generate another nice long rant about internet grammar and usage pedantry. Just ask!

semordnilap, I totally agree, it is great to discuss the aesthetic and technical differences between digital and film photography, in terms of which medium better suits which tasks. Obviously film is still a valuable creative tool, with its own strengths. It is when people assume some kind of moral stance about it that I begin to get exasperated.
 
Keith said:
Well said and very true ... when someone is banging on about their film M or Barnack or analog whatever, no one ever seems to barge in to tell them that they couldn't give a sh!t because their digicam rings all their bells and they don't need no stinkin' analog camera.

Sometimes it doesn't bother me but other times it really sucks!
Click to expand...

Well, actually, some digital lovers do. When it isn't over stated, I take it just like I would in any other discussion where a dissenting opinion can be allowed.

But when it is offered as if there were something wrong with digital or film, then I would agree it isn't necessary. If it sounds sort of silly in the context of the thread, then I guess it should be evaluated that way and move on.

Don't stress.
 
dogbunny said:
I agree, but can we also agree to not use the word analog? Or maybe first check the definition of the word before using it. Just kidding, mostly. 😛 not specifically targeting the OP. 🙂
Click to expand...
If people insist on using 'that' word in reference to film photography, can they at least spell it correctly - it's analogue 😀

(No offence to our American cousins who are obviously in such a rush that they need to drop the odd letter from various words) 😉

Simon
 
This is just how forums always are, X-100 or not. RFF is considerably less contentious than many. I never understand when one person takes it upon themselves to declare moral authority and suggest not only what people should post but assume why they post it and how it makes anyone other than themselves feel. It's obvious that the Digital Vs. Film discussion is tired, ridiculous, pointless etc. etc.. The thread already seems to be turning towards that, despite ostensibly being against trolling.

Your point seems to be people shouldn't be upset about the X-100 or have an emotional reaction (I totally agree) yet you seem to be having the same or an "analog" reaction. I'm sure if you get an X-100 you'll use it to take great pictures, like the ones of yours I've already seen, but I don't think this kinda thing does anything but fuel the faux debate even more.
 
"...until I went on the RFF, I was not even aware there was a club of nuts hurling insults at each other over camera ownership. I though such behavior was pretty much limited to teenage boys...."
 
J.M. said:
"...until I went on the RFF, I was not even aware there was a club of nuts hurling insults at each other over camera ownership. I though such behavior was pretty much limited to teenage boys...."
Click to expand...


You've never been on certain photo.net forums or the Leica owners forums I take it? 😉

In comparison, RFF is almost Victorian in the genteel behavior of it's membership. In comparison.
 
Analogue, words that sound the same? As in representation of what is said.

The numbers on a clock represent the (words for) time, analogue.

just guessing,

W
 
mabelsound said:
It seems as though, in the wake of any digicam announcement that people get excited about (e.g, X100), there is always a sharp increase in the number of people who feel it necessary to say that they don't need the fancy new whatever because their Barnack or what have you is still working great, etc. etc.

May I suggest that this is pretty much straight-up trolling? The excellence of your film camera is not relevant in a discussion of new digital photography products. I say this as someone who loves vintage and analog tech, and shot and developed film for many years. Comments like these are the equivalent of dropping by a sports forum to announce that sports is stupid and that people should read books instead. Your love of film is not relevant. It is a legitimate thing to feel, and worth talking about when the topic is, in fact, film photography, but in the context I'm describing it is the equivalent of holding up a big sign that says I AM DEEPLY INSECURE AND FEEL THREATENED BY THINGS I DON'T UNDERSTAND. It makes you look like a jerk, and makes other people feel beleaguered and exasperated.

Let us add to this the fact that the film vs. digital debate is over. People don't actually debate it anymore. Digital won, and film now occupies a small, devoted, and one hopes semi-permanent, niche among photographers. Arguing how great it is compared to digital now feels akin to rehashing the 2004 Bush-Kerry debates. It gives other people an instant headache, and is entirely beside the point.

Film lovers, talk about the stuff all you want. I agree, it is awesome. But stop going out of your way to douse other people's enthusiasm. You are not better than they are. Your aesthetic sensibilities are not superior. You are not necessarily better photographers, or more refined in your personal tastes.

Thank you.

[/rant]
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, it seems that it works both ways. Digital extremists vs. analog extremists. I use both passionately. So, for a thread to be posted wanting a moratorium on analog passion, give me a break. It is on both sides of the aisle.

So, can we re-phrase it to include both?:angel:
 
MC JC86 said:
Your point seems to be people shouldn't be upset about the X-100 or have an emotional reaction (I totally agree) yet you seem to be having the same or an "analog" reaction. I'm sure if you get an X-100 you'll use it to take great pictures, like the ones of yours I've already seen, but I don't think this kinda thing does anything but fuel the faux debate even more.
Click to expand...

I disagree--I'm not being emotional at all. I'm sitting here in my living room in my pajamas, enjoying a break from grading papers, and trying to steer discussion on my favorite forum in a more productive & pleasurable direction. I had tried to give up arguing online, but this seemed worth a post. I'd like to see more emotional reactions to the art and craft we love, and fewer to hairsplitting differences in technology. Thanks for the compliment on my pictures, btw!

I dunno, I think occasional calls for civility and reasonableness are worth making. It's easy to forget how your words affect other people.

Have to agree that this is indeed an unusually civil, interesting, and intelligent group! That's why I feel it's worth the effort.

Oh yeah, as for the other topic...I think "analog" is kind of a jokey echo of the word's more technically appropriate usage in audio and recording equipment. At first it was funny to apply it to cameras, but it's become common enough now to seem reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom