Film or digital

[back alley]

gentlemen, PLEASE!!

tone down the rhetoric or play elsewhere.
this thread is about to be closed if the tone of the discussion does not start to move upward.
joe

 

[RJBender]

Are you guys still at it?

Andy's original gripe was about people calling their computers and imaging software digital darkrooms. Ok, that's fair. Chat rooms don't have real walls and I don't care for the term chat room. :bang:

The original thread topic was about an image viewed on a computer monitor that may have been captured by film or digital. It was fun trying to guess. 😀

Who's going to be around in 200 years to see if a print from a darkroom looks better than a digital file? The average person doesn't like to deal with boxes of photos, IMO. So when my descendents find my photos, they will probably throw them in the trash. I'm not saying my photos are that bad. I'm saying the technology will be so much different in 200 years that people might consider paper prints trash, unless they are preserved in a museum. Do you think that in 200 years, images might be projected on people's retinas in stereo?

The chemicals are what will affect analog photography's future IMO. Environmental laws seem to be getting more restrictive. Dumping your darkroom chemicals down the drain may be a serious crime in 10 years or so. (Maybe it already is in some places 😕 ) Fifiteen years ago, who would have imagined that mercury camera batteries would be banned?


R.J.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

gentlemen, PLEASE!!

tone down the rhetoric or play elsewhere.
this thread is about to be closed if the tone of the discussion does not start to move upward.
joe

Joe: I'm sorry, but I must respectfully point out that there's only one person who's been setting the tone all along (the first to guess gets a cyber --hence, nonanalogue-- prize), cherry-picking the things that self-serves his narrow-minded soliloquy. Tom correctly called his trolling behaviour long ago, many are still, unfortunately biting.

Just read all of Andy's grandiose "points" and it really boils down to him not getting the answers he wanted, and in its stead deriding anything and anyone that slightly disagrees with his hyperanalogue uncompromising mind.

One of the things that is so great about this forum is that disagreement is indeed debated or discussed; not derided. Andy has derided anything that does not agree his tightly-wound microcosmic definitions. Others, in their utter frustration, have been left with no recourse but to speak to him in the same language he seems to understand in this thread: confrontation.

This analogue photographer (me), who dislikes this sort of Napoleonic delusions of grandeur which are habitual at PNet, is not too happy that the same person who purportedly dislikes the same is indeed fomenting that atmosphere by his own short-sighted intransigence.

And I'm out to another room. It really reeks in this thread.

 

[RJBender]

94 more views and this thread breaks 3,000 in 3 1/2 days!

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

Film or digital?
,)(8)).
(()))())()).
(()"````"::= )
)| _ _ ::= )
(()(o)/ (o) ?(/)
)🙂:c ::.( .(/)
(( \ .__. ;,/(/)
) `.___,'/ (/)
| | (/)
_.' ,\(/)__
_.-" ` u (/) ".


R.J.

 

[RJBender]

DMR's new ASCII avatar reminded me of this type of art. Check out this site. :
http://www.chris.com/ascii/

R.J.

 

[Andy K]

Joe: I'm sorry, but I must respectfully point out that there's only one person who's been setting the tone all along (the first to guess gets a cyber --hence, nonanalogue-- prize), cherry-picking the things that self-serves his narrow-minded soliloquy. Tom correctly called his trolling behaviour long ago, many are still, unfortunately biting.

Just read all of Andy's grandiose "points" and it really boils down to him not getting the answers he wanted, and in its stead deriding anything and anyone that slightly disagrees with his hyperanalogue uncompromising mind.

The points I have made:

1. I don't believe inkjet prints have the proven longevity of traditional prints (silver, platinum palladium, bromoil, carbon whatever).

2. I don't believe digital files no matter how well 'backed up' are a reliable archival medium. How many prints can you make from a corrupted RAW/JPEG file?

3. Digital equipment/materials works out to be more expensive, less reliable and, by it's nature, subject to regular obsolescence.

4. There is no such thing as a 'digital darkroom', it is working on a computer.

That is my opinion. Take it or leave it.


For expressing these views I have been roundly pilloried throughout this thread. If in a few places I let myself down and had a go back, is that surprising?

Nowhere have I derided anyone's photography, but because my views did not coincide with someone else's views my photography WAS derided ("strong words coming from a person with a dip$hit assortment of pictures and raving about his technique...")
THAT is pure Pnet behaviour.

I apologise if I have offended anyone.

 

[aizan]

beliefs this, beliefs that. it's better to admit that you can't factually prove your opinions instead of equivocating. and you've derided people here on other things, so don't whine about someone dissing your pics.

i'm sure you've very proud of your darkroom. i am of mine, too. but it doesn't make you a hot shot.

 

[OlyMan]

This is so much like the Vinyl vs CDs debate 20 years ago it's frightening.

 

[OlyMan]

...oh yeah, forgot to add, and equally as pointless!

 

[Andy K]

beliefs this, beliefs that. it's better to admit that you can't factually prove your opinions instead of equivocating. and you've derided people here on other things, so don't whine about someone dissing your pics.

i'm sure you've very proud of your darkroom. i am of mine, too. but it doesn't make you a hot shot.

People are free to have whatever opinion they want of my photographs, but to use it to score points through insults in a debate about analogue vs digital? It says more about the mentality of the person who said it than it does about me. I'm not whining about it, I am simply pointing out that that sort of behaviour is pure Pnet.

I also do not consider myself a hotshot. Again, nowhere have I said I consider myself better than anyone else. I consider the analogue process to be better than the digital process, but that does not mean I think I am a 'hotshot'.
As for proving my opinions, theres over 150 years of analogue photography with proven archivability, Digital archivability is purely an estimate based on lab tests in a strictly controlled environment. Already CD roms are proving their longevity was wildly over estimated, and now people are advised to recopy every 6 months.

So, come on, prove me wrong, stop taking cheapshots and prove there is not a Pnet attitude here. I was big enough to apologise, are any of you big enough to accept that apology?

 

[Bertram2]

But don't worry, I'll pass your message around that analogue photographers are not welcome here anymore.

I understand this as beeing the announcement of an active anti-RFF propaganda in future, a new level of imperinence !

You dare to tell us you will shout it all over the place, wherever you are, that "analog photographers are not welcome at RFF" ??

But you still want to stay here and continue to bother all members you cannot convert to your religion with offenses, arrogance, contempt and schoolmasterish derision and to accuse them later for beeing rude, because they anwer you on the level you obviously prefer ?

How long do you expect will this kind of sabotage be tolerated ????????

 

[Andy K]

So, come on, prove me wrong, stop taking cheapshots and prove there is not a Pnet attitude here. I was big enough to apologise, are any of you big enough to accept that apology?

Read this again.

 

[OlyMan]

Why can we just not accept that film and digital are different means to practically the same end, rather than harping on about which is "better"? Better for what, specifically? Because in my opinion each has a similar number of merits and demerits to make them probably about equal in the grand scale of things 🙄

As for the original image we were asked to assess (can we all remember that far back?), it was a digital one. Digital in-so-far-as we were all looking at a digitally-reproduced image on our computer-screens, therefore while it was a lighthearted bit of fun trying to guess whether it had been originally captured by digital or analogue equipment (as the the poster no doubt intended it to be), as a real practical test it was flawed because we were already looking at a digitally-captured facsimilie of the analogue original - not the original analogue print - meaning it may as well have been taken with a digital camera.