Is anyone else a bit frustrated?

[mysteryscribe]

Good thing to know... so when is the funeral... I want to send flowers

 

[motcon]

Film is a dead-end solution! Kodak doesn't even make b/w chemistry or paper anymore. Put your time into learning digital rather than going backwards to film.

Good thing to know... so when is the funeral... I want to send flowers

haha..thanks for the chuckle. (actually, it was more of a snortle; perfectly brewed sumatra coffee exited my nose at high velocity).

 

[terri]

Film is a dead-end solution! Kodak doesn't even make b/w chemistry or paper anymore. Put your time into learning digital rather than going backwards to film.

Seriously....if this is what you believe, more power to you and your pixels, and go enjoy your medium of choice. You have every pop-photog rag-mag out there spending huge advertising dollars, hoping like hell you'll spout exactly this kind of nonsense on a public forum.

Too bad you're completely wrong (with the exception of Kodak D/C their paper production - their chemistry is alive and well).

 

[motcon]

Seriously....if this is what you believe, more power to you and your pixels, and go enjoy your medium of choice. You have every pop-photog rag-mag out there spending huge advertising dollars, hoping like hell you'll spout exactly this kind of nonsense on a public forum.

especially this one:

have you lost your sense of reasoning? now be gone!

 

[cigrainger]

Film is a dead-end solution! Kodak doesn't even make b/w chemistry or paper anymore. Put your time into learning digital rather than going backwards to film.

LMAO okay.

Wow, now not only do I have to look at all of the overphotoshopped, neon oversaturated, HDRed photos of everyone's kid, dog, or whatever, I have to be told that FILM is a "dead-end solution".

Are you kidding me? Going backwards to film? That's like saying guitarists are going "backwards" to tube amps, audiophiles are going "backwards" to vinyl, or car enthusiasts are going "backwards" to a 1964 Camaro Z28. Oh, that's the same year as my Spotmatic.

 

[terri]

Wow, now not only do I have to look at all of the overphotoshopped, neon oversaturated, HDRed photos of everyone's kid, dog, or whatever, I have to be told that FILM is a "dead-end solution".

Referring back to the title of this thread, that's pretty in tune with my own frustrations nowadays.

That was good.

 

[cigrainger]

Referring back to the title of this thread, that's pretty in tune with my own frustrations nowadays.

That was good.

Thanks.. It's kind of what I was alluding to in thread title. It seems like anybody that can afford a digital SLR and photoshop can point, click, and criticise things they don't understand, while all the while flooding the market and taking the big companies' focus away from the art behind film photography.

It's like.. wow, you can use an autofocus zoom lens and aperture priority to create an image that's par for the course at best, then do autolevels, unsharp mask, and bump the saturation and contrast. If you're REALLY handy, you can dish out the cash for Photomatix and have the most overdone effect ever that was originally meant to make up for the fact that digital lacks the dynamic range of film.

Sorry for the rant. I didn't want this thread to turn into this. I'm just really turned off of digital stuff lately. There's no character or organic qualities.

And I mean.. I learned on my digital, and it's not going anyhere. It's convenient, but any day of the week I'd rather see grain than pixels.

And it's not to say there aren't GREAT photographers that use digital, even on this forum. There DEFINITELY are, and I really enjoy their stuff. They just seem few and far between.

 

[terri]

Sorry for the rant. I didn't want this thread to turn into this.

Honestly, I try to muffle out any thread I see turning into a "film v. digital" tirade, and this was not one of them. You have nothing to apologize for here. I found RV's comments inappropriate for the spirit and intent of your thread, especially when we have ample places on TPF to celebrate and discuss the use of digital and all its various applications.

I personally have no use for digital, but I'd react the same way if an analog user butted into a pro-digital discussion in the same pointless and uninformed manner.

To each his own! Show respect for one another's choices.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Can't we all just get along.

ouch ...no not again ....don't hit me again I'll buy a nikon digital. ....just stop beating me. ......No i wont use it but I'll buy it.

 

[jwkwd]

.......Still waiting for the rebuttal from "film is dead" poster.

 

[Weaving Wax]

I have to say that I do bump contrast, levels..etc..etc..in photoshop and I use film. It's mainly because the scans I recieve with my prints (I'm not lucky enough to have my own, yet) are usually blown out or the contrast/brightness is too bright. I wouldn't knock photoshop. I do agree that people try to "fix" their shots in PS without actually trying to get a nice image on the front end, but sometimes making it look better for the web isn't a bad thing. By the way, my prints come out pretty nice...it's the scans that bother me....

 

[cigrainger]

I have to say that I do bump contrast, levels..etc..etc..in photoshop and I use film. It's mainly because the scans I recieve with my prints (I'm not lucky enough to have my own, yet) are usually blown out or the contrast/brightness is too bright. I wouldn't knock photoshop. I do agree that people try to "fix" their shots in PS without actually trying to get a nice image on the front end, but sometimes making it look better for the web isn't a bad thing. By the way, my prints come out pretty nice...it's the scans that bother me....

I know, I have Photoshop CS2, and I have to say that b/w scans look weak from the processing place without an autolevels and maybe a contrast bump. A LITTLE bit of touchup isn't a problem at all. It's just that I see people who literally bump contrast and saturation until the photo looks fake. And HDR on EVERYTHING is doing my head in.

 

[cigrainger]

Can't we all just get along.

ouch ...no not again ....don't hit me again I'll buy a nikon digital. ....just stop beating me. ......No i wont use it but I'll buy it.

LOL! :lmao:

I'm bent on getting a decent rangefinder and medium format this summer. Oh goodness. :thumbup: A Pentax 67 is sounding quite appetizing.

 

[cigrainger]

Do you guys agree that the learning process here is just as valuable as the savings in processing? I mean... I just think it's so cool to do this. It seems like it would be so satisfying.

 

[terri]

I don't think anyone in this thread was knocking PS, WW. I'm an exclusive film shooter, but if I ever want anything posted online, I'd be nuts not to have some kind of editing software. My scans are pretty basic. PS can make quick & easy work to get them to closely resemble the print. For what it can do, compared to how I use it, it's like having an 18 wheeler truck carrying home my groceries, but it was purchased at a great student discount. It's there if I ever feel like learning it. But I'd rather spend my time perfecting the craft of silver printmaking, and keeping scanned adjustments at a minimum.