Why you should shoot FILM

[inkiboo]

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.

I've ignored your other ramblings but I simply can not let this one go.

For you to describe the photo libraries of the world's leading photo agencies as "transient nothings" is utterly laughable and utterly offensive.

Transient, in the purest sense, they may be but "nothings"? Regardless of your feelings about film vs digital I can not believe you have written that.

 

[Voyager]

Usea digital photo frame... works for me.

This does not add to the simplicity of digital though does it? What do they cost? £50ish?

That is a lot of prints and they will last longer and can be seen without plugging-in and phoning me up to explain 'how the picture frame works' again....

 

[Voyager]

I've ignored your other ramblings but I simply can not let this one go.

Oh dear. What exactly do you think you have ignored?

Look back through the thread - you've actually replied to everything I've posted that quoted you.

For you to describe the photo libraries of the world's leading photo agencies as "transient nothings" is utterly laughable and utterly offensive.

Transient, in the purest sense, they may be but "nothings"? Regardless of your feelings about film vs digital I can not believe you have written that.

I did not 'describe the photo libraries of the world's leading photo agencies as "transient nothings"' - I suggested that unprinted digital images were. You were the one that suggested that I should 'take a quick peek at AP, AFP, Getty Images, Reuters etc websites'. The images on any websites are 'transient' as they will not be there when the computer, server or hard drive is switched off and therefore nothing remains.

I can see this is a bit too hard for you to follow but I've not 'rambled' - I consider that I have been reasonably concise - and nor do you seem to have the first idea of what I 'think about film and digital' as the only time(s) I have mentioned it on this thread is to say that I have and use both.

 

[inkiboo]

I have mentioned it on this thread is to say that I have and use both.

You moan that someone posts a carton of people arguing on the Internet and then put a symbol to suggest I am cuckoo?

It's best I leave talking to you because your inconsistency and nonsense is staggering.

 

[inkiboo]

Look back through the thread - you've actually replied to everything I've posted that quoted you.

Not that it really matters, but if you look again, I haven't. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant on the Internet.

 

[fontmoss]

But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant on the Internet.

i dunno, you 2 are having a pretty decent bash. can we kiss and make up yet? i was really enjoying this thread.

 

[joxby]

A digital file doesn't exist as a physical thing, you can't touch it or own it in a physical sense, you created nothing, it exists only as a collection of 1's and 0's.
You can view it on a screen of course, to a lot of people that is a pretty poor substitute for a living tactile object that exists in reality, a digital file never exists like that until its printed, and lets face it, as a percentage very few are.
I'll take a print of any size to screen display everyday of the week, some peeps don't feel its that important :shrug:.
This might be one of many a fundamental difference in the film v digital "discussion", film creates a physical object by its very nature, digital doesn't.

Can we stop trolling now pls

 

[inkiboo]

i dunno, you 2 are having a pretty decent bash. can we kiss and make up yet? i was really enjoying this thread.

It's hard to argue when someone says this:

"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."

So to summarise, digital is only quick and easy if you have a printer at home. WTF?

 

[Voyager]

It's hard to argue when someone says this:

"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."

So to summarise, digital is only quick and easy if you have a printer at home. WTF?

Your summery is, unsurprisingly, totally incorrect.

What was it about the 'perhaps most importantly' that you thought irrelevant?

 

[fontmoss]

*sigh*

 

[Voyager]

This might be one of many a fundamental difference in the film v digital "discussion", film creates a physical object by its very nature, digital doesn't.

I think that is a very important point. Although a digital image is 'real' it is only virtual until it becomes (by whatever means) a photograph - and that is when it gains reality.

But I can see that inkiboo still thinks seeing images on a screen makes them a photograph.

 

[inkiboo]

But I can see that inkiboo still thinks seeing images on a screen makes them a photograph.

It's not often I reference Wikipedia, however:

"A photograph (often shortened to photo) is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic imager such as a CCD or a CMOS chip"

All this pretentious nonsense about digital not really creating photograph only further highlights your non-points. This site is called Talk Photography; shall everyone who uses digital only leave this site so you can pontificate all day long about how unless you use film you aren't really a photographer?

 

[Voyager]

It's not often I reference Wikipedia, however:

"A photograph (often shortened to photo) is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic imager such as a CCD or a CMOS chip"

How uninteresting.

All this pretentious nonsense about digital not really creating photograph only further highlights your non-points.

That is not what I have said either.

This site is called Talk Photography; shall everyone who uses digital only leave this site so you can pontificate all day long about how unless you use film you aren't really a photographer?

And nor is that.

But don't let that stop your ignorance will you?

 

[inkiboo]

But don't let that stop your ignorance will you?

I think really I must stop now because unfortunately I have been guilty of doing what I tell others not to; feeding a troll.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

 

[dazzajl]

Well I think that congratulations are due to this thread for making two pages of good discussion.

Sadly after that, the point took a sharp left and the thread carried on not noticing.

There are some really daft arguments put forward here, digital files can become analogue by printing them and film can become digital by scanning it.

All that is really important is that people are putting eyes to veiwfinders and bits of ground glass in ever increasing numbers. Photography is a blossoming art form and that's good, regardless of your choice of capture.

 

[EdinburghGary]

Fools

 

[AliB]

I like both. does that mean I can argue by myself?

I like shooting MF film for myself. I love the challenge and I love the fact that it is so tactile. If you've never had the sheer pleasure of shooting with a hasselblad then you are missing a real treat.

But then I do enjoy the immediacy of digital and if I'm shooting and being paid for it then I shoot digitally because it's expected!

Having said that I do agree that a ruddy good print is hard to beat which is why I just shelled out £500 for a new printer.

As for the cost? A 1Ds costs in excess of £5K. I bought a hasselblad for £500. That's a heck of a lot of film to get through before we hit equivalency!

 

[irw1]

LOL at Tomas!

 

[Tyke Tiler]

LOL at Tomas!

She's great aint she