Is it true?

jsrockit said:
Yeah, not expensive (or exclusive) enough yet ... I get ya. :eek: However, Lomo cameras do tend to turn up in "cool" stores.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, how a camera is appropriated is not its fault. This comes up a bit in other sites, where certain DSLR folks deride all Leica (digital, not just film) because it's the apparent choice of celebrities and posers, as though somehow this renders the company's cameras inoperable.

I'm compelled to remind these folks about the numerous suburbanites who buy nice big white conspicuous lenses to merely flaunt their materialistic victories. Yet, despite such meretricious usage, it doesn't mean that these expensive lenses are nothing more than status symbols.

As for creativity, some may feel more inspired by using film, others by digital. Some will likely be agnostic about the matter. Whatever the case, digital has been around long enough to prove that its advent did NOT contribute to a surge in photography's overall improvement, especially in terms of creativity.

I've already explained above how film was actually the cheaper route for me, so I hardly consider it "boutique"; it's just another medium of art or documentation. If "hipsters" are in to using film; fine, I welcome all and any to sustain the market.

And a reminder, this is a rangefinder site. While this by no means confines questions or discussions to rangefinders, it does underscore the relevance of the following question: How much does a digital rangefinder cost?

Choice; it's a good thing.
 
sjones said:
Ultimately, how a camera is appropriated is not its fault. This comes up a bit in other sites, where certain DSLR folks deride all Leica (digital, not just film) because it's the apparent choice of celebrities and posers, as though somehow this renders the company's cameras inoperable.

I'm compelled to remind these folks about the numerous suburbanites who buy nice big white conspicuous lenses to merely flaunt their materialistic victories. Yet, despite such meretricious usage, it doesn't mean that these expensive lenses are nothing more than status symbols.

As for creativity, some may feel more inspired by using film, others by digital. Some will likely be agnostic about the matter. Whatever the case, digital has been around long enough to prove that its advent did NOT contribute to a surge in photography's overall improvement, especially in terms of creativity.

I've already explained above how film was actually the cheaper route for me, so I hardly consider it "boutique"; it's just another medium of art or documentation. If "hipsters" are in to using film; fine, I welcome all and any to sustain the market.

And a reminder, this is a rangefinder site. While this by no means confines questions or discussions to rangefinders, it does underscore the relevance of the following question: How much does a digital rangefinder cost?

Choice; it's a good thing.
Click to expand...
As with the famous observation, "Even if the biggest fool on earth says that the sky is blue, it's still blue."

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom