Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
abrewer

Five Reasons

Recommended Posts

Having spent my formative photographic years in film and paper handling, processing, testing, and even taking photos, I would agree with everything Resnick says.

 

This is not to say 'Don't shoot film!', and I still think it should be part of any photographic education: the discipline needed transferred to digital is invaluable. However, whether you shoot film or digital, do so because it gives you the image you want: photography has always meant this. Don't tear your hair out following one particular process (a less confusing term would be 'workflow') in the belief that it is inherently better or, for that matter, that you'll get Brownie points for doing so, when the results show otherwise.

 

I still have a loaded Rolleiflex in the cupboard, just in case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you really like darkrooms (I've spent enough time in them to satisfy my desires to be in them) then digital is a great boon. Could I go back - NO! But like Richard I do have a film camera (M4 loaded with Tri-X) just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is way too obios...

 

Reason one. Adorama is not selling enough film to make significant profit. 

Reason two. Adorama can't sell film cameras to make significant profit.  

Reason three. RR needs to make money somehow. 

 

Those are three real (it is all about money from sales) reasons why Adorama published Resnick's film bashing article, which was somewhat hot potato ten years ago.

Adorama management knew from sales what where are some odd folks who are buying film from them. The purpose of this nothing new about trashing film copy&paste article is to convince those odd folks buying film at Adorama to get into digital. Because most likely, once you on digital, you'll, most likely, keep on buying and not 4-10$ rolls of film.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is way too obios...

 

Reason one. Adorama is not selling enough film to make significant profit. 

Reason two. Adorama can't sell film cameras to make significant profit.  

Reason three. RR needs to make money somehow. 

 

Those are three real (it is all about money from sales) reasons why Adorama published Resnick's film bashing article, which was somewhat hot potato ten years ago.

Adorama management knew from sales what where are some odd folks who are buying film from them. The purpose of this nothing new about trashing film copy&paste article is to convince those odd folks buying film at Adorama to get into digital. Because most likely, once you on digital, you'll, most likely, keep on buying and not 4-10$ rolls of film.  

 

So in a nutshell, Adorama's message is "If you shoot digital, buy film cameras and film from us; if you shoot film, buy digital cameras and memory cards from us.  Whatever the case, just get on the treadmill and buy, buy, buy..." 

 

While we're at it, a pox and crab lice on their lackey writer for stealing Ken Rockwell's M3 image and removing his watermark from it.  Undeniable theft of copyright protected imagery; I hope KR sues them over it.

Edited by Herr Barnack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So in a nutshell, Adorama's message is "If you shoot digital, buy film cameras and film from us; if you shoot film, buy digital cameras and memory cards from us.  Whatever the case, just get on the treadmill and buy, buy, buy..." 

 

While we're at it, a pox and crab lice on their lackey writer for stealing Ken Rockwell's M3 image and removing his watermark from it.  Undeniable theft of copyright protected imagery; I hope KR sues them over it.

 

I just dig it. How could he became to be a total buffon not only stealing one of well known image, but trying to deny the obvious. What a tool... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha this made me laugh. Boycott Adorama, I say. What a bunch of effing clowns. It is incomprehensible why any retailer ever would want to alienate any of its customers.

 

I personally don't care a rat's rear why anyone shoots whatever it is they shoot. It seems the OP ought to have posted the link in the digital forum, though. 

 

Seems Adorama may have removed other content by Resnick.

 

https://www.adorama.com/alc/article_author/mason-resnick

 

And it seems Resnick was the author not long ago on an article about image theft. It's now gone. Not even archive.org has it.

 

 

 

Edited by philipus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there is a place for both film and digital which is why I invested in a secondhand R6.2 recently. In fact, my local "photographic" Society had a back to basics session last week about digital and as the sole film shooter there I realised just how much more complex digital is than film just because of all the software in the camera and later which tries to mimic film.  OK, yes, at point of shoot it may be faster, easier, certainly cheaper per shot and very flexible, but afterwards there is all the post processing workflow. I have found it quite difficult going back to film after 15 years of digital (previously I did my own wet processing and print/enlarging) because film puts the SKILL of photography right back at the point of shooting. One cannot switch ISO mid shoot, or check images instantly, or get the camera to auto focus, so the entire shot skill is in the hands of the photographer but one does get a permanent full frame image every time.

Indeed, I came away from the meeting realising that the Society is really an "imaging" group rather than a "photographic" group. This was backed up by the Secretary insisting that he check with higher level groups that images captured on film were allowable in regional competitions.

I shall carry both my R6.2 and my digital C together from now on. The C for quick and spontaneous shots, or maybe where I need higher ISO (I have no analogue flash), or when I need zoom greater than my 50mm F2.

Richard 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] I came away from the meeting realising that the Society is really an "imaging" group rather than a "photographic" group. This was backed up by the Secretary insisting that he check with higher level groups that images captured on film were allowable in regional competitions. [...]

 

Taken at face value, that concept is certainly f*cked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Indeed, I came away from the meeting realising that the Society is really an "imaging" group rather than a "photographic" group. This was backed up by the Secretary insisting that he check with higher level groups that images captured on film were allowable in regional competitions.

Richard 

But photographic (film) pictures are a subset of "imaging", and digital is, if not pressed too hard, a subset of "writing with light"; photography. There is no real distinction; it's just nonsense. Perhaps the Secretary (...He polished up the handle of the big front door...) and his higher levels are afraid a subversive film hand will create better images of local cats than those generally displayed. Hopes here that the pompous frauds let you in, Richard, with your dark art, and that you astonish them at will with your pic tures.

 

Unless you don't care to.

 

I've said this here before, the best photography is a loner's quest. If you're seeing what everyone else is seeing you're seeing nothing at all. Whether it's "good" or not is not the reason for the search, nor its reward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resnick’s stated reasons for never going back to film are: (1) “digital costs less than film,” (2) “digital is faster,” (3) “digital is healthier,” (4) “digital is more flexible,” and (5) “I can make beautiful prints from my digital files.”

 

Wow. Just wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is time to revive my memories being one those 'new guys using miniature cameras' for daily newspaper photography.

 

"How many columns will fit 1 1/2' " ? A good beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael's always even-handed with his reviews and his critiques . . . pretty much nails this one IMO

 

Agreed - Resnick certainly didn't do Adorama any favors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Darkroom practice will die a lot younger than film photography. People will still want to shoot film/use film cameras, so there will always kitchen-sink processing, a handful of big labs, home negative scanners, and the same handful of labs doing drum scans. But very few people are going to be interested in learning darkroom practice or maintaining their own darkroom.

 

2. If Resnick thinks that digital is environmentally-friendly, he's nuts. He should go check out some of the places that harvest the raw materials to produce digital cameras. Combine their practices with digital rot/planned obsolescence, and I think it's really in the eye of the beholder whether the net effect on human health is any better with digital. Lots of stuff that gets put into/onto digital camera innards during construction is plenty carcinogenic, too.

Edited by Lonescapes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. If Resnick thinks that digital is environmentally-friendly, he's nuts.

 

It is not in his backyard (NIMBY). Elitist bastard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Like an intellectual fractal the digital vs. film debate is a border of infinite length enclosing a finite space.

 

2. Stealing electronic content is not "digital's" crime but its culture, and it didn't start yesterday.

 

3. Journalism has become lazy and shallow, apparently with an ample list of reasons why it must be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...