Why you should shoot FILM

Voyager said:
As long as the 'average person' has a suitable computer and quality printer and the skill and time to do it, sure.
Click to expand...

Again, you are using flawed logic. You seem to be suggesting that if you have digital then you must also be printing the photos at home; why is that the case?

With a digital camera, you have removed the need to print the photos to actually see them. Please, tell me how that is not easier than film?
 
inkiboo said:
Again, you are using flawed logic. You seem to be suggesting that if you have digital then you must also be printing the photos at home; why is that the case?

With a digital camera, you have removed the need to print the photos to actually see them. Please, tell me how that is not easier than film?
Click to expand...

I agree. ^^ I know many recent digital converts, who don't even own a computer. They just drop the memory card off at the local shop and order prints, and or a CD to view them on their telly. Simples!
 
The point about most people only needing 1mp cameras is interesting. Most of my friends seem to use cameras/photos in two ways. 1, they take pictures and use the same camera to show them to people, either there and then or on subsequent occasions when they have the camera with them. 2, they upload the images to facebook or something similar. They seem quite happy to not make prints.

C'est la vie.
 
inkiboo said:
With a digital camera, you have removed the need to print the photos to actually see them. Please, tell me how that is not easier than film?
Click to expand...
Do tell me the way I can show these unprinted digital images to my 84 year old mother in her house?
 
Voyager said:
Do tell me the way I can show these unprinted digital images to my 84 year old mother in her house?
Click to expand...

Erm, you take them to a shop to get them printed? I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make. Again, you implied in your earlier post that if someone had a digital camera they must therefore print at home. Why is that the case?

The average person, which your 84 year old mother is not, hardly ever needs to make prints, therefore digital is great for them. And if they did need to make prints, they would just take them to a shop.

I am really not sure why anyone would attempt to argue against the simpliciity and ease of digital compared to film.
 
Voyager said:
That puts you on the left hand side of the bell-curve then.
Click to expand...

We can all try and be clever with little, pointless comments but it takes a lot more to actually to prove your point, which so far you have failed to do.

Please, educate me. Why, for the average person, would it be easier for them to own a film camera as opposed to a digital one?
 
Guys - chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilax :D

This thread has be in fits of hysteria!!! Film is cool. Digital is cool. Both can be very cheap or very expensive. Both can be extremely easy or extremely frustrating. Both though, are tools we use for the same purpose, to enjoy our excellent hobby, a hobby which we all share a passion and love for.

Here take some love and spread it :love: :love: :love:

Stop making me laugh, I just had lunch and I don't want to blow chunks!

Gary.
And nope, not telling you who Chunks is.
 
inkiboo said:
Erm, you take them to a shop to get them printed? I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make. Again, you implied in your earlier post that if someone had a digital camera they must therefore print at home. Why is that the case?
Click to expand...
Because that is what you implied....
inkiboo said:
Digital allows you to do the workflow you describe just as easily (and if we want to get anal, sticking a memory card in a camera is easier than putting film in) but also allows you see your photos without having to print them.

Your workflow means they have to go to a shop and wait for prints to see their photos; digital workflow means they can see instantly on a screen or just download to a computer.

Surely that is easier and more flexible to the average person than film?
Click to expand...
But you now suggesting that the photographer needs a computer and to go to the shop to get prints?

Doesn't that bugger up your 'workflow'?
 
Voyager said:
But you now suggesting that the photographer needs a computer and to go to the shop to get prints?

Doesn't that bugger up your 'workflow'?
Click to expand...

If I have a digital camera, I can see my photos on the camera. I can also see them on a computer (which the average person owns) or I can print them.

If I have a film camera, I need to have my photos developed, either at home or by someone else.

So which is easier for the average person? I will give you a hint, it's the digital camera.
 
"They dont make them like that anymore"..............."Theres a very good reason for that"
 
Voyager said:
Where do you imagine I have suggested that it would be?
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know, when I describe a workflow that means you can view the photos on your camera, computer and get them printed in a shop, in the same way you can with film, and you then reply with "but Sir, but Sir, they need a printer in their home too to make prints".

Why on earth do they need a printer in their home too?

Then you brought up the case of your elderly mother. So are you suggesting that if your eldery mother wanted prints of photos then it would be better for her to have a film camera? Because that is what we are talking about here; film and digital.

So please, do tell me what point you were trying to make because it seems a mismash of non-points at the moment.
 
inkiboo said:
So which is easier for the average person?
Click to expand...
'Easier' what? 'Average person' who?

There is no photograph without a print. As long as it is not sunny it is quick to see some rubbish image on tiny low quality screen on the camera. If you have a monitor handy it could be convenient to you can see the image for a time on the larger screen.

But what are they? Transient nothings.
inkiboo said:
I will give you a hint, it's the digital camera.
Click to expand...
I'd like to 'give you a hint'...... but you are really not worth it.
 
This is like the Rocky vs Apollo Creed Fight, in forum form. Digital in one corner, Film in the other. No one is really gonna win outright, and in the end, both will live as life long friends.

When Apollo dies, oh sorry, I mean Film, eventually dies, Digital will shed actual tears.

Ding Ding, going into round 10!!!

Gary.
 
Voyager said:
But what are they? Transient nothings.
Click to expand...

What a load of pretentious nonsense.

I suggest you take a quick peek at AP, AFP, Getty Images, Reuters etc websites because they are all filled with "transient nothings".
 
inkiboo said:
Oh I don't know, when I describe a workflow that means you can view the photos on your camera, computer and get them printed in a shop, in the same way you can with film, and you then reply with "but Sir, but Sir, they need a printer in their home too to make prints"..
Click to expand...
You are the one that thinks there is a 'workflow'.

I suggest it is just complicating the matter of taking pictures. You take them. You (eventually) make prints. End of.
inkiboo said:
Why on earth do they need a printer in their home too?
Click to expand...
To make prints.

But then I'm not the one that is faffing about worried about some fatuous 'workflow'
inkiboo said:
Then you brought up the case of your elderly mother. So are you suggesting that if your eldery mother wanted prints of photos then it would be better for her to have a film camera? Because that is what we are talking about here; film and digital.
Click to expand...
No, you suggested that with your 'workflow' (whatever it is) you could 'see your photos without having to print them' and 'they have to go to a shop and wait for prints', then you seem to have become a bit confused as you suggested going to a shop and waiting for prints was what you should be doing.
inkiboo said:
So please, do tell me what point you were trying to make because it seems a mismash of non-points at the moment.
Click to expand...
I have already told you why but because you are finding it hard to understand my simple point, I'll try again.

Digital imaging is only 'quick' and 'easy' IF the 'average' person has has a suitable computer (and quality printer) and the skill and (perhaps most importantly) the time to do it. I'd agree that dropping off a media card for prints is near enough the same as dropping off a film - but there is none of your 'workflow' involved either.
 
inkiboo said:
I suggest you take a quick peek at AP, AFP, Getty Images, Reuters etc websites because they are all filled with "transient nothings".
Click to expand...
Are they still visible when your computer is switched off? No. Ergo they are transient nothings.

I suspect most will have been printed. They are photographs.
 
Inkiboo, Voyager....hint :D

Neither one of you will accept the others point of view, this is hilarious. One of you give up, and walk away from the table :)

Gary.
 
This is how stupid you look:

duty_calls.png
 
EdinburghGary said:
Neither one of you will accept the others point of view, this is hilarious. One of you give up, and walk away from the table :)
Click to expand...
Not so. I've already posted where I think film and digital are perfect. After all I've got (and use) both.
 
Voyager said:
Not so. I've already posted where I think film and digital are perfect. After all I've got (and use) both.
Click to expand...

Be the bigger man and end the silly and pointless debate then :) It's going nowhere, personal insults are creeping in, and it makes the forum look like a nursery to any newcomers thinking about joining.

Gary.
 
As it was my original comment that seems to have caused this latest inflamation, I will add a bit more fuel to the fire.... I mean I will try to apply some ointment to it.

Before digital, everyone who wanted to document their life in pictures had some form of camera. The average consumer had a 35mm point and shoot.

They used the film then got a minilab or mail order company to make prints. Simple.

The mail order companies also gave you a free film with your prints. Even simpler.

When digital arrived the easiest thing they could do would have been to carry on exactly the same way. No extra cost involved and no need to learn to do something differently.

What actually happened is the marketing people got involved and hyped it up so much that Eddie Punchclock and Sally Housecoat (to use Mr Burns' terms!) thought that they had to move with the times and get one of these new devices.

In reality, they did not have to do this as for normal snapshots on 6x4 or even 5x7 paper, no one is going to see any difference in quality. All digital has done for the average consumer (who makes up at least 99% of the market) is make the process of getting prints a bit more complicated.

Where myself and Mr Inkiboo differ is that I see actual prints as fundamental to the existence of photography. If I couldn't make prints, I wouldn't bother taking photographs.

Yes, you can view them on the back of your camera or on your TV or monitor or on your MySpace page but for me personally, that is not what I want to do.

In my opinion, nothing beats actually having a print in your hand which you can look at and pass round.

This is just my opinion though. You are equally entitled to have your own opinion on the matter.



Steve.
 
Voyager said:
What? Ones like this?
Click to expand...

You clearly fail at humour :) (Not an insult, just an observation).

But no. Like the one a few posts above, "I'd like to 'give you a hint'...... but you are really not worth it."...to quote whoever said it.

Gary.
 
Steve Smith said:
Where myself and Mr Inkiboo differ is that I see actual prints as fundamental to the existence of photography. If I couldn't make prints, I wouldn't bother taking photographs.

Yes, you can view them on the back of your camera or on your TV or monitor or on your MySpace page but for me personally, that is not what I want to do.

In my opinion, nothing beats actually having a print in your hand which you can look at and pass round.
Click to expand...
+1

Really, I consider the electronic images are no more than a modern version of holiday slide show that Uncle Albert made everyone watch at Christmas - they need a projector to be seen* and they are gone at the flick of a switch.

Perhaps the back of the camera monitor is the loupe and the computer/TV the projector?

*Yes, I know you can print them!
 
EdinburghGary said:
You clearly fail at humour :) (Not an insult, just an observation).
Click to expand...
It's not funny. It is a tedious cliché but it could be seen as a 'personal insult' that could make 'the forum look like a nursery to any newcomers thinking about joining' couldn't it?
 
Voyager said:
It's not funny. It is a tedious cliché.
Click to expand...

You are more than entitled to your opinion, and I will not attempt to change your view of it. It is however funny, to me, and I suspect, most others on the forum.

I will bid this thread farewell, I know when the Ego's land, its time to play elsewhere :)

Enjoy the remainder of your "fight".

Gary.
 
Nowadays we live in a Digital age and the WWW is a reality.Quite naturally we now have Digital cameras that integrate and maximise the use of current communication systems and techniques.Digi makes learning much easier for newbies--and thats no bad thing---the more the merrier.This is all good--but as I posted earlier--I do miss the joys of using a roll of Velvia--and has been said--the quality if the shot was nailed was definitely better which is why there will always be film fans.Quite right too.Its ok to like both formats.(y)
 
This thread is full of idiotic comments that really have no bearing on the "film vs digital" debate for 2 reasons:

1) Neither is better then the other, they both have strong advantages and disadvantages. Some prefer film, others prefer digital. Some find film easier, others find digital easier. So anyone arguing that one is better then the other is pure FAIL

2) ITS A HOBBY! GET OVER IT! If some prefer to use film, then let them, who cares what your opinions are because to them you are wrong. And to those who prefer to use digital, then film users opinions are wrong.

Now, can we just STFU and everyone enjoy the fine art that is Photography

:)
Mike
 
MJ Stebbings said:
This thread is full of idiotic comments that really have no bearing on the "film vs digital" debate for 2 reasons:

1) Neither is better then the other, they both have strong advantages and disadvantages. Some prefer film, others prefer digital. Some find film easier, others find digital easier. So anyone arguing that one is better then the other is pure FAIL

2) ITS A HOBBY! GET OVER IT! If some prefer to use film, then let them, who cares what your opinions are because to them you are wrong. And to those who prefer to use digital, then film users opinions are wrong.

Now, can we just STFU and everyone enjoy the fine art that is Photography

:)
Mike
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! And just to add, we all know that its ALIENS in Lost, and NOT Gods.

See? Done. Close the thread :)

Gary.
 
Never mind film or digital... Glass is the way to go!
 
This thread was asking for it as soon as it was started. If there isn't any further correlation between a constructive and interesting discussion regarding the original question then it should be locked quite soon to avoid this obligatory unpleasantness.

It is just like starting a thread called "What is politically correct?". Just a load of subjective opinions that are always borderline and essentially an endless argument.

Sorry, but culture these days means kids and older kids could give a jack **** about the artistic side of prints that some people are trying to convey. They care about about downloading music and not owning the CD, just like having pictures on the Facebook rather than the album in their lap; it is just the way things are and arguing about it is futile.

I can't do prints simply because it takes enough time out of my day and life to simply enjoy photography as a passing hobby, let alone taking it into a full blown romance. Many people don't even take photographs for even half of that hobby-esque reason, which is why film is dying. If you want to be an artist, you can use brushes... but how many works of art have you seen done as a painting with a brush in the last 10 years? And how many movies have you seen to make millions from CGI?

I'm not for or against anything, since I would usually pick the pretentious arty and purist side, but lets face it, lads, what the hell do you expect? Enjoy what you enjoy and if you find others that do similar, then frigging A... but if not, get on with it and be happy; don't do anything that doesn't make you happy. Unless of course you have a "goal".
 
Bob Loblaw said:
Inspired by this thread (well, the start of it anyway) I went out this morning and bought an Olympus OM10, with a 50mm 1.8 lens and 2 rolls of Ilford HP5+ for £40.

Now I'm off to go shoot some film and see what all the fuss is about (y)
Click to expand...

Well done. You are not alone!




Steve.
 
Anton17 said:
This thread was asking for it as soon as it was started. If there isn't any further correlation between a constructive and interesting discussion regarding the original question then it should be locked quite soon to avoid this obligatory unpleasantness.

It is just like starting a thread called "What is politically correct?". Just a load of subjective opinions that are always borderline and essentially an endless argument.

Sorry, but culture these days means kids and older kids could give a jack **** about the artistic side of prints that some people are trying to convey. They care about about downloading music and not owning the CD, just like having pictures on the Facebook rather than the album in their lap; it is just the way things are and arguing about it is futile.

I can't do prints simply because it takes enough time out of my day and life to simply enjoy photography as a passing hobby, let alone taking it into a full blown romance. Many people don't even take photographs for even half of that hobby-esque reason, which is why film is dying. If you want to be an artist, you can use brushes... but how many works of art have you seen done as a painting with a brush in the last 10 years? And how many movies have you seen to make millions from CGI?

I'm not for or against anything, since I would usually pick the pretentious arty and purist side, but lets face it, lads, what the hell do you expect? Enjoy what you enjoy and if you find others that do similar, then frigging A... but if not, get on with it and be happy; don't do anything that doesn't make you happy. Unless of course you have a "goal".
Click to expand...



Here here! :clap: (y)
 
Anton17 said:
This thread was asking for it as soon as it was started. If there isn't any further correlation between a constructive and interesting discussion regarding the original question then it should be locked quite soon to avoid this obligatory unpleasantness.
Click to expand...
What 'original question' is that then?
 
I hate lost, I wish it was aliens, I might have watched it then!

But seriously... shoot with what you prefer, be that digital, film or firearms :)


P.S. I HATE LOST!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top