Slag it out

[John Camp]

I've refrained from posting in some of the more touchy-feely discussions we've had here lately, because I'm not all that touchy-feely. I don't mind a good sharp disagreement as long as it doesn't come to name-calling or arrant stupidity, and I think we all recognize the point when somebody has geeked out and has barricaded himself into a semantic foxhole.

All that said, I think we ought to slag it out on a couple of issues. It would be interesting, and the people who argue that we can't be offensive under any conditions, we can't point out holes in logic or information because it might be hurtful, can simply stay away. I think we should have good, air-clearing debates over:

Film vs. digital (economics of, obsolescence rate of)
Film vs. digital (resolution of, DR of, high-ISO of)
Full-frame vs. crop sensors
Mechanical vs. electronic

JC

 

[jaapv]

I think most of us here have agreed to disagree.....

 

[Pherdinand]

the whole film vs digital debate makes no sense at all. It is film AND digital, at least at the moment. And it is about personal preferences, anyway, not some god-created universal supremacy.

The full-frame vs cropped sensors is a non-debatable fact. Everybody knows the advantages and disadvantages of these, and if not, one can simply read it somewhere.

I've never seen a heated mechanic vs electronic debate.

Nevertheless, feel free to contradict me in the above points - and be prepared for a fight😀

 

[jaapv]

The only thing I object to is the term "full-frame" as in my perception that means at least 18x24 cm, as in that case the sensor size should be the same as the print size.

 

[Finder]

Fairly pointless debate. Anyone who can argue the "superiority" of either one does not understand photography or art. I find the economic argument the silliest - do we assume watercolor is "superior" to oils because it is cheaper?

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I think we ought to slag it out on a couple of issues. It would be interesting, and the people who argue that we can't be offensive under any conditions, we can't point out holes in logic or information because it might be hurtful, can simply stay away. I think we should have good, air-clearing debates over:

Film vs. digital (economics of, obsolescence rate of)
Film vs. digital (resolution of, DR of, high-ISO of)
Full-frame vs. crop sensors
Mechanical vs. electronic

JC

John
i'm not a touchy-feely person either and with all due respect i don't see how any of these debates you've listed can be "air clearing" as we all choose to work the way we want with the materials that suit our particular way of working - so in my mind this thread is pointless. Is that frank enough?

 

[Gid]

I have a digital versus film debate almost every day - mostly film is winning, but then economics comes into it - I paid over $3000 for the RD-1 and it is such a waste not to use it. Things get really heated when it comes to scanning then the RD-1 wins.

I'd like to argue with anyone who has a point of view regardless of what it is if it will help clear the air - its very hot and humid here at the moment. 😉

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Slagging it out online just isn't worth it. It gets real stupid real fast. I should know.

Why bother? You want a good debate? Hold one in person over a beer or two. It's more demanding when you are able to look into the other person's eyes. You are exposed and vulnerable. Just the way it should be.

Online, you are shielded for the most part. You don't quite have the possibility that the opponent is likely to reach out and grab you if you insult them. Or vice versa.

What will it get you? Bragging rights? Nada. It is virtual. And, virtually pointless.

 

[FrankS]

Some folks prefer film, some folks prefer digital. Some things film is better at. Some things digital is better at. What's to debate?

 

[Gid]

Some folks prefer film, some folks prefer digital. Some things film is better at. Some things digital is better at. What's to debate?

How's the fence Frank? 😀

 

[Socke]

Hm, digital came a long way in the past 12 month, with the advent of the digital Leica M it seems to be an accepted form of photography.

What now? A discussion with ruben about the ownership of the Falklands and Jerusalem?

 

[Pherdinand]

Yeah, and how about the ownership of the Moon?

 

[Socke]

Yeah, and how about the ownership of the Moon?

I have to dig that up, there was a short novell by Robert A. Heinlein "The man who sold the moon"

 

[jaapv]

I'm all geared up for a good fight....

 

[FrankS]

Let's talk politics and religion now. (NOT)

 

[Pherdinand]

I only know about "The man who sold the world", and that's a song from nirvana.
But the world includes the Moon, right?
Anyway, the question is, sold to whom??

By the way, several countries were up for sale on e-bay already. Incl new zealand lately, and romania some time ago.
Romania resisted the ebay admins for a full day. The description was hilarious. I think the last bid was 99 billion usd... Not bad, starting with 16$ and only one day.
I wonder how many snipers were watching.

 

[jaapv]

I have to dig that up, there was a short novell by Robert A. Heinlein "The man who sold the moon"

Yup. It is the cover story of an anthology. But he didn't sell the ownership of the moon, it was just a hotel on the moon. A brilliant story, btw.

 

[erikhaugsby]

I only know about "The man who sold the world", and that's a song from nirvana.

It was a song by David Bowie, but Nirvana did cover it.
Mighty good tune if you get to listen to it on the Nirvana Unplugged album...

 

[Pherdinand]

oops, my mistake. I did not know it was of Bowie.
No problem, i like that bloke too!


Anyway, he might have been in the nirvana. Or feeling like that, at least.

 

[flashover]

Some folks prefer film, some folks prefer digital. Some things film is better at. Some things digital is better at. What's to debate?

Frank is right on the money. I use both depends on my mood and what I am doing.