film v. digital

[Ralph Turner]

The original point of my initial post was to ascertain that this site wasn't exclusively oriented towards film. It seems that digital may have caught on despite an affection for the good ol' days.

It may well have, indeed, Gary..

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

Well, there are another couple of points (in addition to looking different to my eyes, too). For me there is the enjoyment of using all sorts of vintage kit. There's also the personal angle, like getting to use my Dad's old Spotmatic, my late cousin's Minolta XG-M or a dear, departed friend's Kodak Retina and getting wonderful results from them, (perhaps, in a way, a tribute to their memory). Then there's the more tangible nature of film, even just having a strip of negatives in the hand before digitising. This not knocking a purely digital workflow. Far from it. I will always be grateful for digital tech for facilitating my renewed enthusiasm for film. Anyway, there is a point to each of our own personal methods of visual expression, however it's achieved. Long may you enjoy yours, Sir .

Well Ralph, I said also, unless they print and hang it on walls. But of course, we are all different and have different ways of enjoyment. I just presented my subjectiveness. Rob explains how he perceives the two, and as I no longer deal with film, I have to trust his emotions. Case rest on my side.

 

[Ralph Turner]

Well Ralph, I said also, unless they print and hang it on walls. But of course, we are all different and have different ways of enjoyment. I just presented my subjectiveness. Rob explains how he perceives the two, and as I no longer deal with film, I have to trust his emotions. Case rest on my side.

Sorry, Ivar, I meant no harm or offence. I apologise if my words if they came across as judgemental. I think it's great that we all have a different approach or different tastes. Keeps things interesting. Long live the rpf!

 

[Tony Warren]

Man has always been an image maker since cave painting days and always will be I am sure. How he makes them and with what will certainly change yet again in the future. What replaces the pixel is no doubt yet to be invented but will surely appear as night follows day. Don't think I shall see it but I'm sure it will spark the same debate again. I suppose AI is pointing the way. As for myself, I can enjoy a medieval illumination or a modern image from whatever medium was appropriate. I simply chose to use a camera from the first time I picked one up even though I had to produce representations of my designs as an architect in pre-digital days. How the camera works is secondary to the image it produces which in turn only comes from the imagination of the photographer.

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

Sorry, Ivar, I meant no harm or offence. I apologise if my words if they came across as judgemental. I think it's great that we all have a different approach or different tastes. Keeps things interesting. Long live the rpf!

I have not misunderstood or felt uncomfortable with what you wrote. Not at all. As I said we see things differently at times, and by that, we hopefully may learn. You have no reason to apologise to me for anything, Ralph. Take care you all. Life is short.

 

[Pete Askew]

I imagine that 99% of us have arrived here via 35mmc (which is 99% film I'd imagine).

Is there an implicit understanding that this site is also 99% film?

I know there are a few who post digital (I'm among them, although my posts are as likely to be either) but I'm wondering if the digital posts are having an impact on the regular film poster?

It seems as if what was always minimal traffic has gotten slower (or maybe it's my imagination).

This site is 99% photography. How you get the image is immaterial. An interesting discussion in any case.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

This site is 99% photography.

What constitutes that last percent Pete?

 

[Pete Askew]

Mostly daft questions!

 

[Brian Moore]

Mostly daft questions!