Does 35mm have to be film?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Dudley Hanks, Oct 20, 2008.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Recently, I've noticed a few posts telling the digital guys to go elsewhere.
    I'm just wondering if a 35mm full-frame sensor qualifies for this group, or
    does it have to be film?

    Not wanting to open up another can of worms, but I'm curious... :)

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 20, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dudley Hanks

    Jurgen Guest

    The rather odd thing about Usenet is that it is uncontrolled.

    A group needs to have a documented goal. It's called the "Charter". Once
    the groups actually exists, the charter is forgotten and anyway, nothing
    it contains any legal meaning or even any obligation to keep the group
    faithful to it's charter.

    This group is a good example of how a group originally set up as one
    thing had to change the content of itself to stay alive. Digital cameras
    have taken over the non-professional world to such a degree even Kodak
    are left floundering as they try to re-invent themselves.

    Just ignore those who would have us live in the past and keep
    contributing whatever it is you wish to post. You are after all a
    photographer, more than can be said for those trying to bury the group
    in a historical black home.

    JH
     
    Jurgen, Oct 20, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. where is the link to your "Charter" page Douggie ??
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Oct 20, 2008
    #3
  4. Dudley Hanks

    Helen Guest

    "Digital cameras have taken over the non-professional world..."

    Digial cameras are a reality in the professional world as well.
     
    Helen, Oct 20, 2008
    #4
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Helen Guest

    Sorry about the typo, I meant DIGITAL.
     
    Helen, Oct 20, 2008
    #5
  6. Already open, don't worry.

    No, digital stuff does *not* qualify for this group, for the simple
    reason that there already exist other newsgroups specifically set up for
    digital cameras (for instance, rec.photo.digital.slr for posts about
    DSLRs, which are the lion's share of digital posts here).

    Please use r.p.d.slr for its intended purpose. (There are other
    r.p.digital... groups as well.)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 20, 2008
    #6
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Jurgen Guest

    My company still uses film for most of their fashion magazines.

    They clearly don't need the same quality in the rags my articles appear in.

    All I get is lowly Pentax P&S digital to fill in when there's no shooter
    to accompany me! - most of the time.

    JH
     
    Jurgen, Oct 20, 2008
    #7
  8. Dudley Hanks

    Mark Thomas Guest

    I wooden apoligize Helen. Aftah awl, 'Jurgen/Juegen' (Douglas
    MacDonald) is a mahster of alturnutiv speling. It's worth noting that
    Douglas has assumed the new sockpuppet 'Jurgen (juegen_haus (at)
    ezilon.com)' and should not be confused with Jurgen Exner, who regularly
    posts here also.


    As for the question, the original charter clearly states the group is
    for discussion of 35mm equipment, including lenses and accessories.

    So any camera systems that use 35mm lenses and accessories would have to
    be on-topic, unless you have some sort of comprehension issue. It is
    interesting to note that the people complaining are not exactly what you
    would call major contributors, and if the posts were restricted to film
    bodies only, then clearly this group would effectively be already dead.

    To David - feel free to point at all the last truly ontopic posts.

    And here's the charter AGAIN, with added capitalisation..
    ---
    This group is for the discussion of ALL ASPECTS of 35mm camera
    EQUIPMENT. This includes 35mm SLR camera bodies and LENSES, 35mm
    point-and-shoot cameras, 35mm rangefinder cameras, 35mm scale focus
    cameras and 35mm half-frame cameras.
    ---
    Notes:
    - 'film' is not mentioned
    - most digital SLRs are based upon the 35mm format
    - DSLRs are effectively replacing 35mm film SLRs
    - DSLRs use 35mm lenses, flashguns, filters, ...
    - many folk here have replaced their film SLR's with digital but still
    use the 'old' accessories.

    It's not rocket science.
     
    Mark Thomas, Oct 20, 2008
    #8
  9. Dudley Hanks

    Helen Guest


    Thanks Mark for that heads-up, and for posting the groups charter
    again.

    As for pros using film, I imagine some still do, but most have moved
    with the times because digital would just make more sense convenience
    wise. I've seen pics from a digital medium format camera and the
    results were phenomenal.
     
    Helen, Oct 20, 2008
    #9
  10. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    That's basically the way I read the Charter, but I thought maybe I was
    missing something.

    Thanks,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 20, 2008
    #10
  11. Yes, you missed something significant: the charter doesn't mention film
    because at the time it was written (more than a decade ago), it was
    implicitly assumed that "35mm camera" meant a 35mm *film* camera. Think
    back to those dim days of long ago: what few digital cameras there were
    were either not anywhere close to the quality of film, or damned
    expensive, and it was not at all clear that digital would replace film
    to the extent that it has today. So the intent of the charter-writers
    can be assumed to be film.

    Add to that the fact that a much more appropriate group exists for
    discussion of DSLRs (which are just about the *only* digital cameras
    discussed here): rec.photo.digital.slr. Custom-made for them, in fact.
    Can you think of any good reason that such discussions should *not* be
    posted there? If so, I'd like to hear it.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 20, 2008
    #11
  12. weren't you living with your parents last week Jurgen ??
    how can you now afford a company that produces fashion magazines??
    hoist with your own petar (again)

    You seem to be telling porkies again Doug, drop the pretence, we ALL know
    Jurgen is just another sock of the Tangalooma Truth Abuser, AKA: Douglas
    MacDonald, AKA: far to many sock to mention.
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Oct 20, 2008
    #12
  13. Dudley Hanks

    Mark Thomas Guest

    David, as has been tediously explained to you *many* times before, you
    cannot be 'implicit' unless you accept others being equally and
    *oppositely* 'implicit'.

    The word ISN'T there. Get over it, and stop implicitly inserting it.

    Do you really think that just because digital cameras were in their
    infancy, no-one guessed they might actually become so good that they
    would USE the 35mm format? And why, for heaven's sake, do you think the
    charter writers would 'implicitly' not want to discuss relevant
    developments and DIRECTLY competing equipment that used the same 35mm
    equipment?
    It is empty, unused and unlisted by the vast majority of usenet
    providers. Now why is that, do you think, David?

    I'll tell you - the need isn't there. And why is that? All sensible
    folk (a large number of whom were 35mm film SLR users), have simply
    continued their discussions here as they have upgraded - after all, the
    equipment is basically the same but with a new medium occupying that
    35mm imaging area..

    Again, David - count the truly ontopic posts here, and also show us
    *yours*. You seem to be avoiding that rather important point.
    Apart from the above, go to any major usenet provider and see how you
    get on signing up for that group, David. F'rinstance, even if you
    malign GGroups, I think you would concede it has a pretty comprehensive
    set of usenet groups. Is rec.photo.digital.slr available?
    NO.

    At Motzarella?
    NO.

    At Giganews?
    NO.

    So, clearly, David hasn't done any homework and just makes this up as he
    goes along... (Yes, I know there is an active group available, but
    David is the one who keeps bringing up the wrong one..)

    And before anyone complains, I won't respond further to the troll.
     
    Mark Thomas, Oct 20, 2008
    #13
  14. Dudley Hanks

    Noons Guest

    Jurgen wrote,on my timestamp of 20/10/2008 11:49 AM:
    The dramatically WRONG concept here being that a
    group HAS to stay alive!

    Nothing could be more removed from the truth.
    And that's why specific groups for digital discussion
    have been created.



    It's "black hole", twit...
     
    Noons, Oct 20, 2008
    #14
  15. Dudley Hanks

    Noons Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote,on my timestamp of 20/10/2008 11:25 AM:
    It does not. Period.
    Really? And who are you trying to fool with that one?

    you too.
     
    Noons, Oct 20, 2008
    #15
  16. Dudley Hanks

    Noons Guest

    Atheist Chaplain wrote,on my timestamp of 20/10/2008 4:15 PM:
    narh, you got it wrong:
    his last name is really Heffner...
     
    Noons, Oct 20, 2008
    #16
  17. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Aw, Noons, I was trying to fool you, but you are just too shrewd for me...
    :)

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 20, 2008
    #17
  18. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    While David likes to point out that there are alternate digital groups, he
    seems to overlook the 4 alternative groups for 35mm format discussions.
    Perhaps one of the following might have a more devoted film core?

    alt.photo.equipment.35mm
    free.uk.photographic.equipment.35mm
    rec.photo.35mm
    rec.photo.marketplace.35mm

    Good Luck,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 20, 2008
    #18
  19. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest


    Having studied political science in general, and constitutional politics in
    particular, I know a bit about charters and constitutions.

    The main thing about charters and constitutions is that they tend to be
    written very plainly and simply -- the less specific the better. Why is
    this?

    Well, the framers of most charters and constitutions usually are aware that
    life evolves, so, if the founders of a group or organization want their
    creation to survive over the long haul, they give it room to grow.

    The omission of the word film, in the Charter of this group would appear to
    be a case in that point. If film had been mentioned, the group would now be
    dead. It wasn't, so the group lives on.

    Perhaps, David, you might want to set up another group, perhaps,
    rec.photo.film-equipment.35mm?

    It might be a great place for threads you are interested in, for a little
    while.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Oct 20, 2008
    #19
  20. Dudley Hanks

    Helen Guest


    Very insightful and well put!
     
    Helen, Oct 20, 2008
    #20
    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.