Film or digital

[Byuphoto]

I used my first TRADITIONAL darkroom in 1970. Had my own by '73 have used one ever since. I still have one today just as s till have my REAL cameras and use them today. I also have a huge color printer that was given to me by a lab that uses the chemicals from a Fuji frontier to process. Now if I just had a room big enough to hold it. My only problem with digital is the cost of the technology. BUt I do have a problem with naroow minded look down your nose holier than thou attitudes. I hope Joe locks this thread.

 

[Andy K]

I see no reason for this thread to be locked. For the most part it has been quite civil.

 

[fgianni]

The link you provided, LMAO! I think you should have found a better example of a digital imager.

Of course, the guy is totally incompetent, the fact that he uses a digital process proves it. 😀

Obviously can do MUCH better, you just don't show it to us because we are too thick to understand. 😉

 

[Ukko Heikkinen]

Anybody besides me think it's time to agree to disagree and move on?

I second that.

Ukko out. 😀


Ukko Heikkinen

 

[Hektor]

I thought Mark Tuckers', 'photos or pictures whatever you want to call them were quite good and certainly worth looking at. Some were particularly striking and his portfolio held my attention for some time.

I use a film rangefinder camera, and make traditional B/W enlargements, and I do feel that is a well established practice which is well worth continuing. It is my understanding of "photography"as it has been practised for the last hundred years or so, and I can well understand a practicioners fond and firm attachment to it.

I have tried to fit up a scanner and to "digitise" some of my negs and prints, with miserabely poor results so far. I would love to be master of both methods, not least so that I can post to the RFF gallery.

I don't really understand why some folks want to discuss chemical -v- digital in such vitriolic terms. It is unlike this forums' usual debating style, and I think it is somewhat destructive.

 

[Socke]

you just don't show it to us because we are too thick to understand. 😉

Beg to differ, if we meet in a pub close to him I'm sure Andy'll hapily show us some of his prints over a pint or two.

Here we do that every friday.

 

[Andy K]

Of course, the guy is totally incompetent, the fact that he uses a digital process proves it. 😀

Obviously can do MUCH better, you just don't show it to us because we are too thick to understand. 😉

As I said earlier in the thread, I prefer the print and really can't be bothered with scanning etc. If you want to see more I have a gallery on APUG under the same name.

 

[Andy K]

I thought Mark Tuckers', 'photos or pictures whatever you want to call them were quite good and certainly worth looking at. Some were particularly striking and his portfolio held my attention for some time.

I use a film rangefinder camera, and make traditional B/W enlargements, and I do feel that is a well established practice which is well worth continuing. It is my understanding of "photography"as it has been practised for the last hundred years or so, and I can well understand a practicioners fond and firm attachment to it.

I have tried to fit up a scanner and to "digitise" some of my negs and prints, with miserabely poor results so far. I would love to be master of both methods, not least so that I can post to the RFF gallery.

I don't really understand why some folks want to discuss chemical -v- digital in such vitriolic terms. It is unlike this forums' usual debating style, and I think it is somewhat destructive.

I just came back from looking at his work again. He has obviously put a lot of time into his images, but there wasn't anything there I found appealing. It really does all look very photoshopped and unnatural, and some of it really did hurt my eyes. Not saying that to denigrate Mark Tucker, that's just my impresssion of what I saw.

 

[ywenz]

I don't give a damn what anyone thinks of it. I make photographs for me, because I want to,

...Photography is not about being better than the other guy, it is about making photographs that please you

By the same argument, then stop bitchin' about the digital process. Other people probably think in the same wavelenght as you.... they chose digital, you chose film.. both works.

regarding Mark Tucker, i was just making a generall point, you don't have to build your entire defense on one measley example I've provided. Here, I'll give you another one you can chew on:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/phitar/

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

What's that smell? eeeew! Somebody, open a window.

 

[Andy K]

By the same argument, then stop bitchin' about the digital process. Other people probably think in the same wavelenght as you.... they chose digital, you chose film.. both works.

regarding Mark Tucker, i was just making a generall point, you don't have to build your entire defense on one measley example I've provided. Here, I'll give you another one you can chew on:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/phitar/

Still not impressed. Oversharp, empty feel, flat looking.

 

[Andy K]

What's that smell? eeeew! Somebody, open a window.

What a well thought out and cogent contribution to the debate.

 

[ywenz]

Still not impressed. Oversharp, empty feel, flat looking.

said it like a person with an assortment of dip$hit pictures and while still raving about his technique...

You still haven't responded to my solid rebuttall: By the same argument, then stop bitchin' about the digital process. Other people probably think in the same wavelenght as you.... but they chose digital, you chose film.. both works.

How can you even argue against that point? ooooh It's solid man, entirely solid. You've burnt your own bridge andy.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

What a well thought out and cogent contribution to the debate.

Debate? There's a debate here?

 

[Andy K]

Strong words coming from a person with a dip$hit assortment of pictures and raving about his technique...

.

Thankyou for confirming your intelligence level. I see you choose to avoid the discussion and use cheap shots instead.

Never mind. Thankyou for your masterful critique.

Read my posts, where have I 'raved about my technique'? I have promoted the analogue process, I have expressed my preference for it and given my reasons why I prefer it.
But nowhere have I 'raved about my technique'. As far as my technique goes, I figure I'm still learning even after 33 years of photography. Obbviously Im a mere novice when compared to such a superb profficionado of the craft such as yourself. I bow before your towering intellect. 🙄

Debate? There's a debate here?

There was until you and Bullwinkle there showed up.

 

[ywenz]

I have expressed my preference for it and given my reasons why I prefer it. But nowhere have I 'raved about my technique'. As far as my technique goes, I figure I'm still learning even after 33 years of photography. Obbviously Im a mere novice when compared to such a superb profficionado of the craft such as yourself. I bow before your towering intellect.

After having said that, this argument is now closed in my book. I have forgiven your previous slips of the tongue. May your future endeavours in the analogue-exclusive world be fruitful and long lasting.

 

[Bertram2]

"true photographic forum"

that's the sort of thinking that plagues other forums. irony!

He said:
It has shown how the RangeFinder Forum is no longer a true photographic forum.
Aizan,
for me this is not irony, more a kinda explosion of arrogance ?
And it is really offensive for ALL members here, isn't it ?
We are not what we tought we would be ? We are just wannabees or what ?
Leaving aside the very cheeky and offensive part I still guess what kinda person you must be to unmask yourself so stupidly in public ? 😕
This guy is really far out !! :bang: I wonder why some still bite and continue to feed this competence troll.

bertram

 

[Andy K]

I said that because this whole debate started when I said you'd see the difference between an inkjet print and a silver print if both were immersed in water. Instead of people discussing the point, a whole gang of people decided to start arguing the pluses of inkjets and the minuses of silver prints. On a mature forum people would accept what I said as a fair point and move on. Instead we now have fourteen pages of pointless argument.
Like I said, this place, and the way people are welcomed to it when they express a preference for analogue photography, is looking and sounding remarkably like Photo.net. That is a shame because this used to be a good site where everyone was welcome.
But don't worry, I'll pass your message around that analogue photographers are not welcome here anymore.

 

[FrankS]

Hey, wait a minute! I'm not welcome here anymore?

You guys let this get out of hand. Come on. Act like the gentlemen that you are.

 

[fgianni]

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

Oh well, we may as well close the forum since I think that 99% of the photographers here are analogue photographers, just that, unlike you, most of us fail to see the "obvious" superiority of analogue over digital.
Many use both, and don't feel they are producing an inferior photograph just because thay may be using a digital process for an image instead of "pure" chemistry.

The photograph is what it counts, more than the technique used to create it.