Don't call my crap photo crap. IT"F FILM, DAMN IT!!!!!!!

[Derrel]

The art world in particular suffers from an elevation of process over content, which is why things like Ambrotypes and Platinum Prints and so forth get something of a pass, or at least a free boost to a higher level. Conceptual art, performance art, these sorts of things have brought us the idea that the process by which the art is made matters. It's probably TRUE for those forms, but it's just not true (in my opinion) for photography.

IF THAT statement were not quite so long and blowhardish, I'd paste it in as my sig file,andrew! (Just kidding about the blowhard jab...your comment is SPOT-ON! and in no way should it be described in pejorative terms!)

Imagemaker46 and Buckster make some good points. I don't miss film at ALL. Not one,single, tiny BIT! One of my favorite films was Kodachrome 64 Professional. It took a week to get the slides back..then 10 days, and near the end, it took 14-20 days, as the few remaining processors had to WAIT longer and longer tyo get enough rolls sent in to make it worthwhile to run batches through the complicated development process that MADE Kodachrome what it was! I do not miss the cost and expense of film and developing film...color slide film or color print film used to coast a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money. $2,400 spent on a d-slr at one time allowed me to shoot the equivalent of $79,000 worth of "E-6 slide film and processing". I do not miss storing film, or dealing with the interminable dust issues, or scratches or water spots or crap lodged on the film...I do not miss the grain and the relatively low resolving power of Tri-X in 35mm size...I do not miss being limited to 1600 ASA with only a semblance of REAL shadow detail. A crap photo can be made on film, or on digital. If it's crap, it's crap.

 

[Fred Berg]

...... A crap photo can be made on film, or on digital. If it's crap, it's crap.

Yes, but the film crap is, at least, organic.

 

[imagemaker46]

...... A crap photo can be made on film, or on digital. If it's crap, it's crap.

Yes, but the film crap is, at least, organic.

Processed with toxic chemicals.

 

[ceejtank]

Andy Warhol used to develop those crazy photo's on film.. something like that I appreciate more than when I replicate the effect in photoshop...

(talking about these images http://cltampa.com/binary/4ff5/andywarhol.jpg)

 

[Buckster]

Andy Warhol used to develop those crazy photo's on film.. something like that I appreciate more than when I replicate the effect in photoshop...

(talking about these images http://cltampa.com/binary/4ff5/andywarhol.jpg)

Not exactly. He used publicity photos shot by others, transferred them to silkscreen, and then used various colored ink to make them into the famous silkscreen paintings he created.

 

[ceejtank]

Andy Warhol used to develop those crazy photo's on film.. something like that I appreciate more than when I replicate the effect in photoshop...

(talking about these images http://cltampa.com/binary/4ff5/andywarhol.jpg)

Not exactly. He used publicity photos shot by others, transferred them to silkscreen, and then used various colored ink to make them into the famous silkscreen paintings he created.

Was not aware of that. I retract my statement.. haha