Film is dead

What is it that causes digitophiles to so aggressively promote digital over film? If they spoke like this about people, you'd say that they felt inferior, or felt they had to justify something. To my digitoPHOBE mind, I take it as inferring that they know digital is lifeless and inferior and requires that we put up with mediocre images, but they have to preach it because it's all fueled by money, marketing and planned obsolescence. Does anyone else perceive this sort of between-the-lines projection?
 
"My first PC Monitor had 14" diameter and 640x400 pixels in 16 colors"

Well, my first monitor was a black and white TV screen connected to a Commodore 64, LOL.
The first true MONITOR was a breen one with Hercules adapters. Two hours of staring on it, and everything out there seemed to be red.
 
Another digital vs film thread..........

The difference between film and digital is that with a digicam, the software is in the camera, with a mechanical the software is in my head.

Now excuse me while I go recharge my brain cells.
 
Apparently the blogger can censor the responses as mine never appeared. There weren't any swear words. I just suggest his premise isn't new and he's like a kid with a bolt through his tongue or tattoos--trying to draw attention by shouting "look at me!!!."
 
From the movie, Field of Dreams, if you build it they will... Well based on this forum and others, I have to conclude someone will build film. I have talked with several labs and they seem to think that a lot of people like to drop of their film and come back for the prints. Would I drop off a digital storage unit that cost me $35+, I don't think so! Here is a photo taken with a tlr on 120mm Tri X scanned on a Epson 3170. I scan a large file on a cd and had a camera photo lab print it on their equipment and it is a stunner. The smallness of this image does it an injustice, but you can imagine what it might look like.
 
Thomaspin said:
A little bit of light reading.
Click to expand...

Tom,
couldn't you resist to open this smelly old can of worms again ? Is there no other way to marketing your book than with such a provocative statement on a forum where as I suppose the majority uses film ?
If you followed the many former threads of digital vs film on RFF you could have known that nobody here on the forum is really interested in statements like yours, which scratch a bit on the surface but do not describe the current situation.

Sometimes I wish this "film is dead" or "X is better than Y" nonsense would be banned for ever here on the forum. That's just playing with fire.

Bertram
 
nwcanonman said:
Bertram,
It is indeed becoming weary, ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

Agree. What next, "shooters vs fondlers" or "the Leica glow?"

Wrong forum.
 
cbass said:
I enjoyed Thom's essay. How much of it was satire and how much was not? 😉

I like shooting digital for my happy-snaps but my biggest concern is that due to "advances" in storage media I won't be able to access my picture files in 10 years, no matter how carefully I've archived them.

I can still look through my film prints any time I want. 😀
Click to expand...

I think I may be one of the few others who also enjoyed his essay. I think there is a lot of interesting commentary and a good amount of satire, which it would appear most people seem to miss - especially those who posted the blog comments on his page.

The opening line sums it up nicely "Film is dead as sure as the LP is dead." DJ's have and will no doubt always use Vinyl, whether it's because they're purists, because of the LP revival or whatever, LP's are still pressed and released, and Turntables are still able to be purchased. CD's (or MP3's or Ipods etc) may be more available, accepted, and new and now, but LP's (like film cameras and film itself) will always have a certain amount of charm and a quality about them that just can't be replicated. CD's and Digital are much sharper than Vinyl and Film, but they're too sharp, too the point of appearing artifical.

From a commercial point of view, what ever is new and cheaper and more available will always over take what has been around for years, and much like commercial radio stations probably don't even have turn-tables let alone any vinyl to play on them. Large scale commercial, photography studios will phase out all of their antiquated equipment, for most cost effective methods.

I'm not sure where else to go with this. But I quite enjoyed the essay, even if this issue has been beaten to death, it was a nice take on the arguement.

"The consumer is the market and he wants things now. Plus he gets to take 3 pictures a second of revolting Aunt Minnie, the one with killer halitosis who doesn’t give a monkey’s how the snaps come out but only that she can see them before she finally kicks the bucket and gives the funeral parlor some well deserved business."

And I really hate how everyone wants to see their photo right after it's been taken.....
 
My digital camera has well entered it's midlife crisis and is quickly gaining dust, and you know what......I don't care!!! I'll stick with my light sensitive emulsions and let other people worry about megapixels (pardon my French...)
 
Ditto Bertram - and yet, judging from some of the responses in this thread and those in the recent past, I would say that plenty of people (here and on other forums) love verbally masturbating about this crap. If you gathered everyone together, put a spit can in the middle of the group, and each one spit one by one, you'd have the equivalent to what these threads come to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jonathan R
W/NW Flatlands
Replies
6
Views
336
serif
serif
K
Canonet Scratches
Replies
5
Views
473
Mackinaw
M
T
Nikon FA dead - can anyone help?
Replies
8
Views
396
Rob-F
Rob-F
Y
Zorki 6 rough winding lever with film inside
Replies
6
Views
423
Valkir1987
Valkir1987
M
Cleaning/Re-labeling Canon Rangefinder Shutter Speed Dial
Replies
8
Views
283
mtnbkr
M
Back
Top Bottom