Film is dead

[Little Prince]

Ah, we're all being too hard on Thomas. Often, the writer does not realize the caustic nature of his remarks (be they intended or not) because he(she) is hearing his own words from his own point of view. It sounds all too different to the reader. Sometimes we are just battling our own opinions and we lay our arguments out there just to invite strong comments from others. I don't know what Thomas intended, but I doubt he was trying to say 'all ye film users, it's time to take up the shovel and start digging'.

I just wrote a long story that I deleted on second thoughts because some people might think I was flaming the digital medium. To cut a long story short, there was this time when a friend showed me some digitally engineered pictures that failed to excite me for that very reason. I can't help it, that's how it is. I almost told him why, but for some reason didn't. I'm glad I didn't because had I said it then (the way it was in my mind), I would have sounded like I thought he was evil and his existence was futile. Though I wouldn't have meant it, and would only have been speaking my thoughts aloud, or trying to figure out what own position on the matter really was, it would have disappointed/angered him. Moral of the story is, often what we write or say is for our own benefit more than others. Especially when we are dislodging long standing traditions.

 

[bmattock]

This is not about film versus digital. Not even about good versus evil, right versus wrong, ford versus chevy, or any kind of ism.

On the surface, it is a simple conclusion based on observed trends in the industry, statements made by company representatives, published market share information, and actual observations of what's available.

But it goes deeper than that. Really, this is not about any of those things.

It is about people's emotions and how those emotions shape their opinions in illogical ways. When shown the illogic of those ways, people who are heavily emotionally invested would rather destroy the sender of the message than defend or confront their own illogic.

Copernicus, anyone? Gallileo?

It isn't about film. It isn't about digital. It is about perception versus reality and how far we'll go to avoid confronting things we don't want to confront in a rational way. Like, say, the sun being the center of the solar system instead of the earth. People emotionally invested in that not being true were not happy campers. And if you read their arguments at the time, they sounded a lot like us.

Now, if my deductions are correct, you will commence to ignoring what I just said and continue on with:

a) film ain't dead.
a1) and define what you mean by dead, anyway.
b) digital sucks.
c) does not, digital rules and film sucks.
d) how dare anyone stir the pot by even saying such things.
e) let's kill this thread, it isn't holy to even talk about.

And at some point, someone will say the forbidden word and this thread will be closed down. Everybody angry and for what? Some words that predict a future that you know in your heart is true - but you don't want to accept. There's something to get mad over.

So don't let us look in the mirror - let's fight instead about how rude it is to make us confront how our own emotions keep us from seeing reality.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[richard_l]

Your analysis is correct, Bill. I'm glad you had the guts to post it.

 

[Richard Black]

Bill,
I agree with the position you have posted and congratulate you on how well you wrote it. The theological argument of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is the Middle Age debate that is similar to the film v digital argument raging now. I still ride a bicycle for transportation and out in the boonies of N.W. Ok some even ride horses. Are horses and saddle makers dead? No, absolutely not. This is a forum dedicated to the love and use of RF cameras, film and digital (RD-1) and I am glad to be a member of it.

 

[Bertram2]

Bertram2, what is there to discuss? As a lot of others I use both and I'm mostly more than less happy with both.

And the observation that the unwashed masses want digital P&Ss is true.

Socke,
you must have missed this part of my last post:

>>If there is anything dead for me now then it is this X" vs Y" crap or the ridiculous >>forecasts of the future of photography , which are so often posted by folks who >>don't know a..e from elbow, neither technically nor economically.

That's what I said, and I still mean it. Everybody should use what he likes but let all others alone with his incompetent prophecies nobody has asked for and which are nonsense in general as history has taught us.

Best,
Bertram

 

[Bertram2]

It is about people's emotions and how those emotions shape their opinions in illogical ways.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

No Bill, it is not about people's emotions shaping their opinions in illogical ways ! Somebody just tries to attract attention by teaching us something about the so called economical truth which we all know anyway. It's trivial and nobody really needs that, we all know what's happening on the camera and film market. But putting a provocative prophetic headline on top makes the whole thing hot enuff to make us visit his site and thus we learn he has a book to sell. And as you see this kind of marketing works well.
And so IMHO your interpretation of the text implies much more content or background as this text really has. It's all about to go THERE, nothing else.
A waste of time to discuss it.
Best,
Bertram

 

[bmattock]

No Bill, it is not about people's emotions shaping their opinions in illogical ways ! Somebody just tries to attract attention by teaching us something about the so called economical truth which we all know anyway. It's trivial and nobody really needs that, we all know what's happening on the camera and film market. But putting a provocative prophetic headline on top makes the whole thing hot enuff to make us visit his site and thus we learn he has a book to sell. And as you see this kind of marketing works well.
And so IMHO your interpretation of the text implies much more content or background as this text really has. It's all about to go THERE, nothing else.
A waste of time to discuss it.
Best,
Bertram

d) how dare anyone stir the pot by even saying such things.
e) let's kill this thread, it isn't holy to even talk about.

Marketing? I didn't even see a link for a book, so if that's what it was, it missed me completely. Did anyone here buy the book based on clicking on the link? Hands in the air, folks.

Hmmm. Seems that if that was the point, it didn't work.

Ah, photographers. The beauty is all around you, and you know it. You're skilled at seeing what other people miss, that's why you are artists. Why then would you resent being shown where your own weed patches are? Can't stand a little pruning from time to time? Don't want to shake loose a few cobwebs now and again?

Trivial? Not worth talking about?

Should we talk about what the best portrait lens is, then? Are Russian cameras really good deals, or what? What bag to buy? Where the best sunsets are to be had? All important questions, but how many times asked and answered?

If it hurts me to examine my own mental processes, then I figure I'm doing it right.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[DougK]

Once again, well said Bill.

 

[FrankS]

Ah, but Bill, you said it: we are artists. Did the artists who painted pictures stop when photography was invented? This isn't about logic, it is about doing what moves you. For many of us here (but not all and that's okay), that means film not digital. Who cares where the consumer market is headed? Let it go digital. I welcome that. It will make what I do and enjoy doing even more special.

 

[RML]

Bill, you're soooo right! I, too, like film (Colour film! I don't care much for B&W film). I also like digital. My R-D1 sees as much action as my Bessa R did. But guess what, for me, as an artist (difficult to proclaim myself an artist but there you have it) digital is more economical. I still shoot the same things as before I got the R-D1 but now I'm also trying other things at times, simply because I can see the results of my experiments. I may not (yet) be improving or changing style but at least I'm broadening my horizons. And tonight I'm gonna bring my gold M2 to the first meeting of the Benelux group, just for kicks. 🙂

Film is dead. Long live film!

 

[Allen Gilman]

This thread is dead! Long live this thread!

 

[Socke]

Socke,
you must have missed this part of my last post:

>>If there is anything dead for me now then it is this X" vs Y" crap or the ridiculous >>forecasts of the future of photography , which are so often posted by folks who >>don't know a..e from elbow, neither technically nor economically.

That's what I said, and I still mean it. Everybody should use what he likes but let all others alone with his incompetent prophecies nobody has asked for and which are nonsense in general as history has taught us.

Best,
Bertram

Yes, that's what I want to say. Use whatever your feel apropriate 🙂

 

[TPPhotog]

Ah, but Bill, you said it: we are artists. Did the artists who painted pictures stop when photography was invented? This isn't about logic, it is about doing what moves you. For many of us here (but not all and that's okay), that means film not digital. Who cares where the consumer market is headed? Let it go digital. I welcome that. It will make what I do and enjoy doing even more special.

Perfectly put 😉

 

[Andy K]

Which would you prefer on your mantle: a hand-crafted sculpture created by the artist or a machine made mass produced sculpture?

 

[TPPhotog]

Which would you prefer on your mantle: a hand-crafted sculpture created by the artist or a machine made mass produced sculpture?

It would depend on the reason I got it and where it came from 😉

 

[taffer]

i think you meant:

le film est mort... vive le film!

eh, well, yeah, that was indeed 😀

 

[pmu]

If film is dead, I must be a necrophiliac because I use films all the time. 😕 I have had my fair share of digital pro-cameras (I have owned one and worked in a newspaper for few months earlier this year - shooted digitally of course) and I am been totally honest: If analog would really die (=no films, no chemicals, etc.) and the only option would be to shoot digitally...I would probably end my photography hobby. I really really did not enjoy at all to shoot digitally - on the other hand...shooting with analog; they thrill comes from so many things...not just the image quality!

 

[RML]

If film is dead, I must be a necrophiliac because I use films all the time. 😕 I have had my fair share of digital pro-cameras (I have owned one and worked in a newspaper for few months earlier this year - shooted digitally of course) and I am been totally honest: If analog would really die (=no films, no chemicals, etc.) and the only option would be to shoot digitally...I would probably end my photography hobby. I really really did not enjoy at all to shoot digitally - on the other hand...shooting with analog; they thrill comes from so many things...not just the image quality!

Maybe the R-D1 will be something for you then. 🙂

 

[Andy K]

What is a dead pixel?

 

[pmu]

Maybe the R-D1 will be something for you then. 🙂

Well, there's one serious problem: it's d-i-g-i-t-a-l!! 😀