[pure-silver] Re: [lens] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- From: afterswift@xxxxxxx
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:46:26 -0500
Ralph,
That's a good summary of the situation. The upshot is that we have all these
options. I don't think we can be driven as groups into this or that form of
photography. It's an individual matter. Maybe of personal style or purpose.
For example, photojournalists have no alternative but to use digital because
editors want photos while the stories they relate to are topical. Field
photographers can make personal cboices based on emotional or objective
reasons. They are their own bosses. Which is true for most everyone on this
list. We have opted for silver.
Bob (not Randall)
-----Original Message-----
From: info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: [lens] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak
commercial
Peter
Don't forget that digital has changed the photographic world. People are so
passionate, because some see their territory threatened or their painfully
obtained experience rendered obsolete. How many films, have gone since
digital, how many papers, manufacturers, you name it. It's not about being
tolerant anymore, and it's not about leaving people to make their own choice
either. To many, digital is a real threat. It has merciless killed analog
choices. It has changed photo clubs all over the world and has driven valued
experts into a photographic no-man's land. Digital is not tolerant!
To me, it's a bit of a threat too (Photokina for example isn't worth going
anymore), but it has some good points too. It separated the serious guys
from the snap shooters. The snappers went digital, good, I won't miss 'em.
The serious guys are left and they are more serious than ever. Also, they
are now much easier to spot.
On the other hand, combining digital and analog has gotten to little
attention. The dividers above are one reason for that. It will change,
television didn't kill the radio, photography didn't kill painting, but the
old world is gone, at least for now.
I wish we would have kept the digital guys away from the photo clubs though.
Why did they never bother the painters?
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
http://www.darkroomagic.com
On 2006-12-31 21:13, "Peter De Smidt" <pdesmidt@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bob Randall wrote:
>>
>> I read this dribble (the entire thread, not just this particular
>> response) all over the internet and I¹m always left wondering the same
>> thing. Why are people so passionate about such meaningless stuff. Why
>> would anyone care what someone else does or what equipment they use.
>> How does any answer validate someone¹s choice. It seems childish to me.
>>
>> Bob
> I'm with Bob 100% on this one. I use digital for snapshots because I
> prefer doing so, all things considered. Others prefer film, and that's a
> fine choice as well.
>
> -Peter
> ==============================================================================
> ===============================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
> and unsubscribe from there.
============================================================================================================To
unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account
(the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and
unsubscribe from there.
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free
AOL Mail and more.
Other related posts:
