Concise Advice from the Beeb

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Dave, Jan 10, 2005.

  1. Dave

    grol Guest

    If "me" had bothered to read some recent posts, he'd see its an abbreviation of
    "grolschie".
     
    grol, Jan 17, 2005
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dave

    brian Guest

    Ah!, but now he is going to ask what is a Grolschie

    Brian........................
     
    brian, Jan 17, 2005
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dave

    Owamanga Guest

    So when he says " I believe film and film cameras are superior to DI"
    (in an article HE links to in that thread, a previous article that HE
    wrote, and was actually quoted in full by another poster in the thread
    we are discussing), you think he actually means that digital is better
    than film?

    Weird.

    I guess you have major comprehension problems with the English
    language, so I'll try and help you out. The words 'superior to' can be
    swapped with 'better than' and the strange Dl can be swapped with
    'Digital'.

    Given these substitutions, the meaning remains the same. He is saying
    "film and film cameras are better than digital".

    It's very simple.
    And nobody is asking for *small* sample images, are they?

    Crops from full resolution images can be used to illustrate
    capabilities of either system, except when one such as 'me' takes a
    totally retarded position that digital, just because it has to be
    sampled into binary, is somehow flawed. Thereby creating the great
    irony, he *can't* prove on the web why film is better than digital
    because *BOTH* sample images will have to become digital.

    ...analog websites don't exist.
    Bollox, there are plenty of websites that do this comparison.

    Digital cameras are not perfect by any means, they can suffer a unique
    type of sensor flare, moire, gridding etc all of which can be
    demonstrated by looking at digital photograph samples, and many
    websites do this.
     
    Owamanga, Jan 17, 2005
    #63
  4. Dave

    Owamanga Guest

    Oct29, 2004: you respond to "Camera for my wife"
    (we know how that one goes)

    Nov1,2004 : you post "To all the Digital Dullards"

    Retaliation it may be, and an old war, but you are hardly innocent of
    starting the fight again.
     
    Owamanga, Jan 17, 2005
    #64
  5. Dave

    brian Guest

    I feel I have to correct him on the $30 digital versus the $10 disposable
    film camera, I think you will find that you would have to spend a shit load
    more than $30 ,to get a Digi that matches up to a film camera, Disposable or
    not., and I am not just being a filmy here, its Fact, the resolution on
    anything below about 3 mp's, and I am being deliberately generous with that,
    would not come close to a 35mm image, from ANY film camera. go past the 5 mp
    mark to get similar results, and you have to be taking $200-300 for one of
    those.

    I feel the tremors building already..........DUCK AND COVER!!!!!!!

    Brian...................
     
    brian, Jan 17, 2005
    #65
  6. Dave

    me Guest

    <chomp chomp chomp aren't you full yet?>

    Sign,
    me
     
    me, Jan 17, 2005
    #66
  7. Dave

    me Guest

    Licking grol's boots *again* I see.
    Sign,
    me
     
    me, Jan 17, 2005
    #67
  8. Dave

    me Guest

    PS: WTF is a grolschie? Is that an NZ name or something you say when you
    step in shite? "Groveling grol" Now that has a nice ring to it!
    Sign,
    me
     
    me, Jan 17, 2005
    #68
  9. Dave

    me Guest

    GIVE THAT ASS KISSER A CUPIE DOLL!
    Sign,
    me
     
    me, Jan 17, 2005
    #69
  10. Dave

    me Guest

     
    me, Jan 17, 2005
    #70
  11. Dave

    brian Guest

    Why would I want to kiss a donkey?, and what the hell is "A CUPIE DOLL",
    sounds like Noddy Holder asking his Missus if she wants some tea., as in
    "fancy a cupie doll?"

    Brian........................
     
    brian, Jan 18, 2005
    #71

  12. Since he is giving as much as he gets at this point, I was certainly not
    defending the person using "me" as his signiture. Instead, I just addressed
    the single message quoted and the general issues raised in the messsage I
    responded to. Beyond that, I want no part in this discussion.

    Stewart
     
    Dwight Stewart, Jan 18, 2005
    #72

  13. Ah, so you're referring to some other message, not the one quoted. In the
    message you replied to (in this thread), all I saw was a message quoted from
    another thread pointing to an Epinions.com article ("The Features You Need
    In An SLR Camera") and some links to camera stores (Adorama and so on) -
    nothing about one media being "better than" or "superior to" the other.
    Clearly something was said between that message and the later message you're
    now referring to which ushered in a "better than" argument in that other
    thread.


    Well, more power to him. It's certainly his right to have that opinion,
    isn't it? What would cause you to be so enthusiastically compelled to
    challenge an opinion?


    I must have missed something. I thought you were asking him to post a link
    to his photography web site - which, if like most photography web sites,
    would only contain small sample images.


    Great! As such, there is no reason for him to post such a comparison, or
    for you to keep asking him to do so. I guess that ends this discussion. ;)

    Stewart
     
    Dwight Stewart, Jan 18, 2005
    #73

  14. I didn't say an inexpensive digital or inexpensive disposable film camera
    "matches up," or is equal to, the other. Instead, I simply said low-end
    cameras like those are the only things needed to produce small sample images
    for a web site.

    "...posting small sample images on a web site (a $30
    digital camera or $10 disposible film camera can
    do that)."

    Stewart
     
    Dwight Stewart, Jan 18, 2005
    #74
  15. Dave

    Owamanga Guest

    No, it's an article *he* refers to in that thread, one he authored.
    Suggest you re-visit the thread, you'll see it quite clearly. If you
    don't want to follow links to websites or references to other
    messages, instead just skipping them as if they are not part of the
    discussion then so be it - you'll maintain this bizarre opinion of
    "me" that differs from everybody else's.

    The guy is a complete asshole. Just look what he's done to this
    newsgroup in the last 3 days.
    Okay, but read referred links. Usenet isn't a linear set of tit-tat
    postings, we usually refer to other sources which often include other
    usenet posts.
    Yes. The something was "film is better than digital" by 'me'.
    Him being wrong.
    Well, that's the whole point, his website wouldn't be like any other
    website. His website would be entirely non-digital, somehow film based
    and analog, probably involving valves. I'd me more than interested to
    check out his sweeping claims that film is superior to digital but
    he's never been able to back it up.
    I've never actually asked him to do anything (at least, I don't recall
    doing so). But, I agree with others that have. If someone like "me"
    wants to post several hundred messages to various photography
    newsgroups making wild claims about how an older technology is better,
    is it not too much to ask for him to show us his film photographs so
    we can see what it is he's talking about?

    The problem with the existing websites that do this comparison, is
    that none of them have access to "me"s obviously amazing film photos.
    Instead they have to use second rate pro-photographers to give them
    the film samples.
    Nothing is that simple :p
     
    Owamanga, Jan 18, 2005
    #75

  16. However, from my prespective, he hasn't done anything alone. You and
    several others have been right there in it with him. Since he clearly has a
    right to his own opinion, the solution seems to be to lighten up and let it
    go.


    I don't get your point. Has he actually said his website would be film
    based instead of digital or is that something you came up with to somehow
    prove a point? If the latter, what does that, or the absence of that, prove
    in relationship to the superiority of either of the two media?

    In some ways, I can agree with his opinion (though not necessarily his
    presentation of that in this newsgroup). From my own perspective, film is
    superior for my use and my situation. That is based on a number of factors -
    my end product to the customer is mostly prints, I've found no significant
    difference in costs between digital and film, I have no desire to sit in
    front of a computer editing and printing images (nor do my customers want to
    pay for that), I have no desire at this point to join the rat race of a
    rapidly changing digital industry, I can based on years of use more
    comfortably predict the results with film, I've yet to find a digital camera
    which can match to my satisfaction the subtle skin tones of a quality
    portrait film, and more. The totality of the many factors, not a single one,
    puts film in its superior position for me.

    Of course, none of that suggests I would not have a website or would
    magically try to put the actual physical prints on that site (what you seem
    to be asking the person using "me" as his signiture to do). Nor does any of
    that suggest film is superior to digital when it comes to others. However,
    based on that, I would not hesitate to recommend film to others, would not
    hesitate to say film is superior from my perspective, nor would I feel at
    all wrong in doing so. Again, looking at the totality of my position, not
    single points or single issues, perhaps you can explain why I would be
    wrong.

    By the way, don't try to convince me that my perspective is wrong, because
    you would indeed be wasting your time - and I will not waste my time
    responding. You are being asked to explain why relating my perspective to
    others would be wrong, not why you think my perspective itself is wrong (it
    is my perspective, not yours to have a say in).

    Stewart
     
    Dwight Stewart, Jan 19, 2005
    #76
  17. Dave

    brian Guest

    Your Perspective is not wrong, but what you have not done is tell us that
    you think digital is crap simply because you say so, and that we have no
    right to say otherwise, THAT, is what "me" has tried to do here, as I have
    said before, I to am and avid film fan, I prefer to work with film, that
    doesn't mean I consider digital to be crap , just that I don't want to use
    it, as I feel more comfortable with film, I prefer the results I get from
    film, to the results I get from digital, I own several Film SLR's, and get
    the desired results from them all, I do not have a digital SLR, so I cannot
    give my view on how the two systems vary, I do use scanners and computers to
    view my work, Nowadays I always scan my work, either on a dedicated film
    scanner, or a flatbed, but I have not been happy enough with the results I
    get from scanning, however that only implies that I cannot use Photoshop to
    it's full advantage and not that digital imaging is crap, I have a digital
    compact, and I know that it will never produce work to the same standard as
    my film camera's, but that does not mean I think ALL digital is crap either,
    I have not used a digital SLR, therefore again,. I cannot belittle them or
    the images they produce, because I have no personal reference to their use.
    "me" however, claims that digital is crap, without any foundation
    whatsoever, he neither owns , nor has used a digital camera, he will not
    show any of his own work to anyone here, or produce evidence to his claims
    that digital is crap, he also without provocation, calls anyone who uses
    digital, and I quote, "digital dullards" therefore.
    We all have an opinion on the old Film v Digital debate, but no one can try
    to force their beliefs on others without providing the proof that they
    insist exists. I work in film and digital but prefer film, "me" SAYS that he
    works in film but hates digital because it is crap, and so should we all,
    WHY?, what grounds does he have for this "opinion", what evidence has he
    given to prove his opinion?, NONE!!!.
    Most people in here simply want to take photographs, and the Film v Digital
    debate just gets in the way of that, I don't care if the photo I am looking
    at was taken using film or digital, or using an antique wooden box camera,
    and printed on stone tablets by Moses himself, I simply want to see a good
    photograph, no more no less, I will happily put my film derived work on a
    website for people to view and give opinions on, I will happily look at
    other peoples photographs on websites, Therefore, I will use digital to
    DISPLAY my work while I use film to PRODUCE it, but for the time being, I
    will only use film to produce it, that does not mean I hate digital, or will
    never convert to it, or use it in conjunction with film. "me" will do
    neither, but will shout about how bad digital is, He insists that digital is
    crap and no one should, or is allowed, to say otherwise, therefore it is
    only natural that people require him to provide proof.
    He will not put his work online because he says that It cannot be done as he
    uses film and the website is digital, we all know that will not float, he
    should have the courage to back up his claims with examples of his work,
    can't remember who said it first, about his websites having to be
    "analogue", a word that the digital community uses to describe film, ?,
    never understood that one myself, but its a play on his insistence that film
    cannot be shown on the internet, because it would then be digital, BOLLOX,
    he simply isn't willing to show any work because either, he doesn't have
    any, or his work is complete shite, or he is afraid that people will give
    their own opinions of his work and he will not like it.
    Insecure, I think is the word.
    We do not want a "pissing" contest in here, we simply want him to back up
    his claims, or shut up
    If he puts up his work and its awesome, then he will receive praise, and if
    its crap he will receive comments on what's wrong with it, and how to
    improve. But if he insists on continuing with his unsubstantiated rants,
    then if he ever does put up his work he is likely to have it shot down ,
    whether its good or bad, as no one now gives a toss about him. People are
    Kill filing him, he is not kill filing anyone, does that not indicate
    something?

    Brian..............
     
    brian, Jan 20, 2005
    #77
  18. Dave

    Owamanga Guest

    *I* am not attempting to prove the superiority of either media, just
    answering other people's requests to "me" that he back up his claims
    using web technology. My point is he can't, due to the digital nature
    of the web.
    And these are all good reasons for you to stick to film - a total
    disinterest in the darkroom side of photography and the digital camera
    you want hasn't been invented yet. I see you have an open mind and
    will at least keep an eye on what digital is doing. One day, maybe in
    10 years, maybe in 1 year, a camera will come along that meets your
    requirements.

    However, the opinion you've just laid out is *nothing like* 'me's
    opinion. His is based on one criteria only - that digital can be
    manipulated and slide film can't be (he calls this argument
    'veracity'). My dog thinks film is better because it's more fun to
    chew up than a CF card, do you agree with her opinion too?

    "me" and my dog may both come to the same conclusion, but I wouldn't
    be too quick to go around saying you "agree" with them.
    I'm saying he can't, if he's allergic to photoshop and it's kind, how
    can he ever show us netzians why one of his un-touched slides looks
    better than a photo that's been through the digital darkroom?

    His argument is outright stupid. You just don't see images in the real
    world that haven't been significantly post-processed to improve their
    appearance. How this is achieved, digital or not, makes absolutely no
    difference. If BMW want to advertise their new model car, they are
    hardly going to staple a damn 35mm slide onto the magazine are they?
    *You* are not wrong. Your reasoning is sound. You have an open mind
    and suggest that one day, a digital camera may exist that you can use.
    So you don't lurk about the newsgroups making sweeping statements that
    holds film on a pedestal for all time.
    I don't have any arguments with your perspective, it makes perfect
    sense.
    I implore more people like yourself who have open minds, can weigh up
    both sides of a decision and then explain your opinion without using
    gorilla tactics to join in.

    I notice that you, for example, haven't been playing net-cop in the
    newsgroups, spamming any posts that have the word 'digital' in the
    body with the slogan 'film is best'. You can see that you are
    different to "me" by now I hope?

    As, for your perspective, I would like to comment on it, reply or not,
    that's your choice.

    From your conclusion, film is superior to digital.

    Here's my perspective:

    They are different, one isn't superior to the other. It's that damn
    simple. There is *nothing* inherently wrong with digital and the same
    can be said of film.

    I will jump on anyone who strongly advises one way or the other
    because THEY ARE 100% WRONG (in my opinion of course). Especially (and
    I don't accuse you of doing this), when they can't back up their wild
    sweeping claims with any sort of logical reasoning, argument or
    *evidence*.

    One only has to look at the number of pro-photographers over the last
    10 years that have moved to digital in one form or another to realize
    it's importance. And any (commercial photographers) that claim they
    haven't, I'll be happy to explain where digital has crept in to the
    process and they aren't even aware of it.

    This is the world we live in:

    In the 1980's, home electronics and audio (music) moved to digital.
    In the 1990's, cell phones, video (DVD) and home movies moved to
    digital.
    In the 2000's, photography moved to digital.
    In the 2010's, all terrestrial TV broadcasts will be digital.
     
    Owamanga, Jan 20, 2005
    #78

  19. The person using "me" as his signiture is already well aware of my
    opinions about his messages. For whatever reason, he likes being an
    agitator, saying what he believes will cause a response. However, for that
    to work as intended, others have to participate. And there seems to be no
    shortage of volunteers at this point. What is truly absurd is for those
    volunteers to claim they're the victims after freely volunteering for the
    role. Regardless, I'm not here to defend either party in this. In fact, I'm
    into this discussion far futher than I intended, so will leave it at that.
    Regards.

    Stewart
     
    Dwight Stewart, Jan 20, 2005
    #79
  20. Dave

    brian Guest

    No one has claimed to be a "victim", other than "me" that is, there are
    always going to be people like "me" who simply will not move with the times
    and realise that things change, whether its for the best or the worst,
    People like him used to burn others at the stake for simply suggesting that
    the world was not flat, or that the earth was not the centre of the universe
    and everything else moved around it. When Photography was first introduced,
    Artists considered it to be practically blasphemous, "what skill is needed
    to point a box at something and wait till a picture appears", it will never
    be considered Art, But as we all know, Photography is now considered a true
    art form, alongside Painting and Sculpture, When Digital was in it's
    infancy, it was the same, It will never catch on, its not up to film, the
    images are just not right, But now, it runs alongside film, producing images
    just as good as film, allowing even more scope, allowing us to use the
    internet to show off our work, even if it ISN'T digitally created in the
    first place, there are people who think that Photography should remain in
    the realms of film, and that digital Manipulation is the work of Satan, That
    is just being short sighted and Thick!
    As you say "Me's" opinion IS his opinion and he can say what he wants, BUT,
    if its without foundation then it is TROLLING, Plain and simple. Yes in an
    ideal world we would simply ignore him and move on, but we are all
    passionate about our "medium " and will defend it, even to a troll like "me"
    who will not put his work up for us to say, oh yes, he is correct, film IS
    best, because he knows that it's not "best" at least not in the sense he is
    trying to portray.
    I was a film is best man, right up till I saw digital images that were on a
    par with film images, and now I agree that digital is here to stay and is as
    good as film, BUT, I prefer to use film, for the moment, I may go Digital in
    the future, but I will never give up my film, I hope, I like taking a roll
    of film out and shooting a scene or a portrait, I know how it will turn out,
    I don't need an LCD display, and I don't want to get rid of my mistakes,
    because that's what makes me unique, I do F*&K up and I can look back at my
    mistakes and tell what went wrong, and the next time I will be able to alter
    the setting and rectify the mistake, that , to me, is photography. To
    others, its setting up, taking a shot and being able to decide right there
    and then whether or not they want to keep that image, it's a personal thing,
    and should not be forced down someone else's throat, Like Christians and
    Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses, who call at your door and try to convert
    you to their religion, Or vegetarians, who will sit in a restaurant and
    announce, I want a vegetarian option because meat is murder, Or pro-lifers,
    who murder ???. I don't go to peoples doors and try to convert them to my
    religion, And I don't go into vegetarian restaurants and announce,
    Vegetables have feelings too, give me a big F*&K off steak and make sure its
    still bleeding, and If someone wants to abort their unborn child , then
    that's their choice, I don't have to agree with, but I have no right to stop
    them. I don't know the circumstances surrounding the case.
    So "me" should just shut the hell up and accept that the world changes from
    time to time and move with it. He should use a scanner to show us some of
    his work, or point us to a gallery where it is being exhibited, or again,
    shut the hell up.
    I really hate people who want me to accept their opinion, even if it's
    completely wrong and unsubstantiated.

    End of Rant
    Brian....................
     
    brian, Jan 20, 2005
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.