bill Posted October 5, 2010 Share #41 Posted October 5, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) "My thesis..." Bless... IF Annibale was shooting for a news agency, rushing against deadlines to get his shots on the wire for publication or broadcast the same day your, um, "thesis" - might hold some validity. He isn't. He wrote of doing "a reportage" - do you know what that means? Google is your friend, if not. In fact, did you read the OP, or just jump in with both feet when you thought you had detected something about which you could get morally offended? The distortion here is in your own mind and values. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 5, 2010 Posted October 5, 2010 Hi bill, Take a look here Big thoughts. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted October 5, 2010 Share #42 Posted October 5, 2010 No, this started as an irony of the situation, which if you had bothered to follow the thread you would know. That the cost of film was able to feed a family for a week, or thereabouts, approximately, give or take, maybe not a cow's worth. The original post, if you had bothered to read it Steve, has nothing whatsoever to do with the cost of film being able to feed a family in the Congo for x days/weeks/months. The question was far less moralistic. It was "Should I shoot black and white film?" if I want to be a pro photo-journalist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #43 Posted October 5, 2010 Of course not. My apologies Andy. I just assumed your first contribution to this thread implied that AIDS sufferers in Africa (its a long way away I know) don't have the resources to think for themselves and make judgements when presented with the facts. I take your retraction in good faith. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #44 Posted October 5, 2010 The original post, if you had bothered to read it Steve, has nothing whatsoever to do with the cost of film being able to feed a family in the Congo for x days/weeks/months. The question was far less moralistic. It was "Should I shoot black and white film?" if I want to be a pro photo-journalist. Yeah. and I answered that earlier. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #45 Posted October 5, 2010 "My thesis..." Bless... IF Annibale was shooting for a news agency, rushing against deadlines to get her shots on the wire for publication or broadcast the same day your, um, "thesis" - might hold some validity. She isn't. She wrote of doing "a reportage" - do you know what that means? Google is your friend, if not. In fact, did you read the OP, or just jump in with both feet when you thought you had detected something about which you could get morally offended? The distortion here is in your own mind and values. Yeah, and I answered that earlier, you need to read the whole thread Bill. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 5, 2010 Share #46 Posted October 5, 2010 My apologies Andy. I just assumed your first contribution to this thread implied that AIDS sufferers in Africa (its a long way away I know) Don't patronise me. Please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 5, 2010 Share #47 Posted October 5, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yeah. and I answered that earlier. Steve So. You have changed your argument in the last half hour? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina Manley Posted October 5, 2010 Share #48 Posted October 5, 2010 "My thesis..." Bless... IF Annibale was shooting for a news agency, rushing against deadlines to get her shots on the wire for publication or broadcast the same day your, um, "thesis" - might hold some validity. She isn't. She wrote of doing "a reportage" - do you know what that means? Google is your friend, if not. In fact, did you read the OP, or just jump in with both feet when you thought you had detected something about which you could get morally offended? The distortion here is in your own mind and values. Based on the profile, Annibale is a male from Italy. Tina Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #49 Posted October 5, 2010 So. You have changed your argument in the last half hour? No, I think you will find in post #16 my position was made clear, that was yesterday by my clock, not half an hour ago. Like I suggested to Bill, read the thread, don't cherry pick. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 5, 2010 Share #50 Posted October 5, 2010 Tsk. Careless of me. Thank you for the correction, Tina. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 5, 2010 Share #51 Posted October 5, 2010 No, I think you will find in post #16 my position was made clear, that was yesterday by my clock, not half an hour ago. Like I suggested to Bill, read the thread, don't cherry pick. Steve Still got nothing to do with the morals of shooting "expensive" film in front of the world's poorest. I really don't understand where you are coming from with this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 5, 2010 Share #52 Posted October 5, 2010 No, this started as an irony of the situation, which if you had bothered to follow the thread you would know. Don't patronise me Steve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #53 Posted October 5, 2010 Still got nothing to do with the morals of shooting "expensive" film in front of the world's poorest. I really don't understand where you are coming from with this. That doesn't seem to be my problem now does it? You have taken it to a whole new level. I only raised it as an instance of irony (post #23). The fact that it has hit a nerve suggests there is a small united movement against even the ironic suggestion that we stand back and look at the costs of reportage. Its not an edifying prospect by any means that such a simple idea can be mis-represented so vociferously. I think you should have a close look at what you are saying in context with the thread and the way it has developed. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #54 Posted October 5, 2010 Don't patronise me Steve. But whats the answer? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted October 5, 2010 Share #55 Posted October 5, 2010 Where should be stop? Shooting naked with the cheapest camera we can find? Some 35 years ago, I had been known to wander naked in the countryside using an old Lubitel 2. (Note: This was on private land.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 5, 2010 Share #56 Posted October 5, 2010 That doesn't seem to be my problem now does it? You have taken it to a whole new level. I only raised it as an instance of irony (post #23). The fact that it has hit a nerve suggests there is a small united movement against even the ironic suggestion that we stand back and look at the costs of reportage. Its not an edifying prospect by any means that such a simple idea can be mis-represented so vociferously. I think you should have a close look at what you are saying in context with the thread and the way it has developed. Steve No nerves hit here. And I'm not the one being vociferous. I've misrepresented nothing. I am just trying to understand where you get your moral standpoint from when all the original question was "Should I shoot black and white film?" Where's the irony then in using a £5000 M9 in lieu of a £500 M2 and a £5 roll of film? I think that maybe you should have a close look at what you have typed in the morning when you've slept on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 5, 2010 Share #57 Posted October 5, 2010 This... There is another irony considering the area of the world where the OP is working. A wonderful roll of film plus processing costs would probably feed starving a family for a week. If using film is to maintain some sort of artistic integrity (which I would dispute, digital and film are brothers, not enemies), then it really does ask the question how much more important is 'art' than the message? ...qualified by this... And using film instead of digital adds to that education ...and informed by this... Just what is this intrinsic mojo of film that means it benefit's the people being photographed so much more than digital? I'll have a guess, it's because this is the Leica Forum, and Africa is somewhere else, off the radar for common sense decisions. Film may have been the necessity a few years ago, but now there is the cheaper digital alternative. Digital is both more efficient for getting the message out to the world, it does exactly the same job, and it doesn't throw first world ideologies of 'I'm an artist!' into the face of the people being photographed, as being adamant about using film does. Makes this... I only raised it as an instance of irony (post #23). ...ring somehow hollow. I stand by my earlier analysis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 5, 2010 Share #58 Posted October 5, 2010 No nerves hit here. And I'm not the one being vociferous. I've misrepresented nothing. I am just trying to understand where you get your moral standpoint from when all the original question was "Should I shoot black and white film?" I think that you should have a close look at what you have typed in the morning when you've slept on it. If my comments about the cost of film are ironic (as originally stated in post #23) I have made no moral standpoint, other than to point out the ironic moral standpoint. You are making an assumption to suit yourself, as are Bill and Steve. The fact that your serious antagonism to the irony has worried me is nothing to do with what I started out thinking. But the rants this evening have made me think seriously that there is something very wrong if somebody would put the mojo of film above the mojo of the price of a life. I started out ironic, but now I'm disgusted. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 5, 2010 Share #59 Posted October 5, 2010 I have claimed nothing of the sort. Please do not put words in my mouth. And I'm not seeing very much ranting going on. Certainly not from this chair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 5, 2010 Share #60 Posted October 5, 2010 Well Austin, it seems to me that you are the only one getting all hissy about "mojo"... Andy's right; back away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself. Oh, and please don't misrepresent what I have said - I take strong exception to that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.