Question:
You need the BIG envelopes! — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And you are still ignoring the truth in order to make your point. I can bring a floppy disc, memory stick, flash card, portable hard disc, or entire bloody computer to my local lab (or electronicly send the files for that matter) and have prints made JUST LIKE WITH FILM. That’s fine for you but I just packed up my PC (not quite as portable as my 35mm film cartridge), took it down the local chemists and they just laughed at me! We tried putting it in one of the film envelopes but they don’t appear to be designed for the standard PC size. Then I realised I’d be without my computer for a while so I gave up. — http://www.wadmag.org.uk http://uk.geocities.com/ukwebring – UK Motorcycle site webring
Response:
You didn’t read the bit about the fact that digitals are outselling film cameras – did you? You also haven’t been reading any newspapers, or magazines – have you? You haven’t spoken to anyone at a lab lately to ask how much of their business is printing from digital files – Have you? You can believe whatever you want to. You can have a good laugh if you like. But when you take your head out of the sand you will realise that digital is rapidly becoming the medium of choice. If you think a bunch of rightwing assholes and some equally obnoxious DJs are Radio, then you have never heard radio. It’s gone – believe me it’s, long long gone. Forget the "hitchikers guide" business. Three networks used to put out over 100 hours of drama and comedy a week. Sam Spade, Tarzan, The Shadow, Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy, Jack Benny – anthologies like Dimension X (later X-1) Lux radio theater, etc. Peanut brained pundits and Madonna are just noise pollution. I didn’t say digital will completely replace film, but it will replace film for all but the dedicated film hobbiest. The next generation will probably have as many film users as currently are making wet plate or gum bichromate pictures. How many lps have you bought in the last 15 years? Heard any good drama on the Radio lately? Who makes the best electric typewriter? How come Kodachrome 25 has been dumped? Whatever happened to Polaroid? — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The number of people I see switching from 35mm P&Ss to digital P&Ss. The number of digital cameras I see in the hands of reporters on the news programs. THe number of people showing off their brand new digicams nearly everywhere I go. I went to a retirement party a couple weeks ago – I was the only one using a film camera. That’s it? Your limited observations is the driver that illustrates film photographers are on the decline? Well, don’t that beat all. Limited observations have now become a hallmark method for making axiomatic statements concerning unpredictable events. Thanks Tony, It’s not my intent to hurt your feelings (not by any means) but I always appreciate a good laugh. Oh well, if I were to say my limited observations, discussions with a number of the Hollywood paparazzi crowed, and camera sales of the local Wallmart, photo stores, and many of the local One Hour developing centers indicated otherwise, that would be a humorous to you, and perhaps rightfully so, even though I could make such a truthful statement. That gets us back to basically saying all that’s being offered by anyone is opinions, not substantiated facts. The crystal ball is still cloudy and nothing has been presented to illustrate otherwise. Digital cameras now outsell film cameras – not just in dollar value, in actual numbers. And there are those, like me, merely waiting for the right company to make the right digital camera at the right price. My wife may have decided not to wait however. She got to use her sister’s digital P&S a couple days ago. Digital is not going to go away, pal. It’s like TV, you can love it, or you can hate it, but it’s here to stay and radio is not comin’ back. I know radio is not coming back, cause it never went away. But besides the obfuscation attempt: Who said digital is going to go away. Thinking back on the posts on this subject a common thinking (as well as my own) has been that digital pictures are here to stay, that has been recognized, but not necessarily because of the use of digital cameras. As I see this issue, your position has been that digital cameras will eventually replace all film cameras (except for the effete photographer) and I don’t share that opinion. Nothing authoritative has been presented to support one theory over another. So (shrug) who cares? It seems the only ones who care are those who tenaciously want to convince others, with no supporting evidence, that digital cameras are on the worldwide trend of replacing film cameras (when so many digital cameras have been listed on auction sites and the local shops in my area have refused to even list them on their shelves as consignment sales). Hells-bells, I can have all the digital pictures I want even though I don’t, and have no desire to, own a digital camera. If I thought digital cameras (of any brand) would improve, enhance, or greatly assist my picture taking expertise (such as it is) I would have a couple, with or without anyone’s condescending approval. The plain fact of the matter is, there is absolutely nothing preventing me or anyone else from making, procuring, sending, printing, storing, etc.. etc.. digital pictures without the need of a digital camera. I can think of a lot of other ways to throw away money and enjoy an associated fantasy more. If there have been posts that predict the demise of digital pictures as such, I must have missed them. Nick Was it Barnum who said, "there’s a sucker born every minute?" — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html What evidence is there to support your claim that the number of film photographers are on the decline? Remember, film photography is world wide. Nick I said nothing of the future – I can have a lab print digital files TODAY. You can have it done, anyone can have it done. Digital is here. It is only a fad in the same way that photography is a fad. In the future digital will improve, as will film. However the number of film photographers is on the decline now and will continue on that path until film is very much a specialty hobby. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html And you are still ignoring the truth in order to make your point. I can bring a floppy disc, memory stick, flash card, portable hard disc, or entire bloody computer to my local lab (or electronicly send the files for that matter) and have prints made JUST LIKE WITH FILM. Your entire argument is based on ignorance. Sure you can but there are a lot of considerations that you haven’t surfaced and I don’t want to nor will I get into that. Personally, I think this whole debate is fixated only on opinions perhaps supported by wishful thinking and as such they must be recognized as being opinions. As to JR’s post being based upon ignorance, I don’t believe that. I believe he has stated his opinions based upon his experiences, preferences, and how he perceives what the future may be. There is nothing ignorant about that. Nobody knows definitely what the future may be. One may speak pro or con of the future of photography with convincing authoritative certainty but it’s still crystal ball gazing and a foggy crystal ball at that. Nick Snip
Response:
Digital is not going to go away, pal. It’s like TV, you can love it, or you can hate it, but it’s here to stay and radio is not comin’ back.
Ironically, I heard a report yesterday that for the first time in many years more people were listening to the radio here in the UK than were watching television. A small margin, IIRC, but still. And if that’s the case for our TV, which in comparison with most US TV I get to watch, well… — David Littlewood
Response:
The problem is that the installed base of audio CD users is very large and the majority of them will not easily be convinced to change to DVD. With more than 600 CDs I will NEVER change — I’ll hoard old CD players if I have to. Besides, there isn’t any reason to change — CDs are so good that any improvements can only be appreciated by one’s imagination (sort of like $1,000 speaker cables). Not that there aren’t some bad CDs out there but the remasters/reissues are taking care of that . . .
I guess one factor is that those of us who bought into CDs in the early 80s are, by definition, at the point where the high-frequency hearing starts to deteriorate. But on the whole I agree with you, I can’t imagine replacing my hundreds of CDs either. — David Littlewood
Response:
Hi JR, Old technology? Just like the gasoline engine, jet engine, rockets, cathode ray tubes and computer keyboards? I see what you mean. <g — Best regards, Tony Polson
Cheeky Tony, cheeky…….I learned that from my trip to London….<g JR
Response:
The marketing I see with digital doesn’t seem to be aimed at the make your own prints crowd. Perhaps you are only reading the ads in the photography magazines. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And you are still ignoring the truth in order to make your point. I can bring a floppy disc, memory stick, flash card, portable hard disc, or entire bloody computer to my local lab (or electronicly send the files for that matter) and have prints made JUST LIKE WITH FILM. Your entire argument is based on ignorance. I never said you couldn’t do the same stuff with limitations. Yes you can go to the lab and make prints from digital media….But the MARKETING of digital is "Do it without the lab", right? "Make prints from your computer!", "No more 1 hour labs!". All that is the marketing to CONSUMERS for the digital format. PRO digital has its own uses and none of the marketing applies. But…since digital is MARKETED as being easier and better, I disagree because my mother would have a much harder time making digital prints than using a P&S film camera, or APS for that matter. If she has to cart any parts of her computer, or media to the lab, what is the advantage over film? As to CDs replacing lps – Yeah it was a big Japanese conspiracy – right. Audiophile lps are considered to be at their best for 10 playings, after which the sound is compromised – If you don’t happen to drop the needle on one the first time you put it on the turntable. As I remember audiophile lps retail for 25 to 50 dollars. Every CD I own still sounds like new, and the most expensive of them were about 15 bucks – most less, and frequently a lot less. As to CD’s (not all digital mediums) being inferior to analog mediums…which was my original point. Sony dropped the ball and cut corners. They decided that since we cannot hear above 22.05K hertz, then to reproduce that frequency response a digital sample rate of 44.1 thousand samples per second is required. Which chops off all frequencies above 22.050. What they didn’t realize is that the frequencies above 22.050 kilohertz have a harmonic effect on frequencies below 22.050 kilohertz. So what they were doing was eliminating a complete spectrum of audio. This is why DVD’s are 96K, not 44.1K as CD’s. This is why audio professionals are trying to make the DVD audio disk a standard. A musician works hard to make music and it gets chopped and will never sound the way it does in the recording studio because the delivery medium (CD) will never produce the frequency response of the original Analog reecording tape. Not to mention 16 bit audio vs. 24 bit audio….. Ignorance? I think not…..this is factual. I am not anti digital, actually the opposite. I wish digital was here, today, as they hype it. It isn’t, at least not at affordable prices. Yet. I am not saying that it isn’t selling or you can’t get goo pics from one. I am saying that at this point, film systems are more functional for me in some areas than a digital system. It WILL change in the future. JR
Response:
This is wildly off-topic, but this discussion implies that Sony (alone) developed the CD format. IIRC, it was actually a joint venture between Sony and Phillips of the Netherlands. Just thought the credit (or brickbats) should go where they are deserved.
I’m glad someone else remembers Philips’ involvement. I suppose I have a bit of a soft spot since I used to work for them, many years ago… Chris.
Response:
The number of people I see switching from 35mm P&Ss to digital P&Ss. The number of digital cameras I see in the hands of reporters on the news programs. THe number of people showing off their brand new digicams nearly everywhere I go. I went to a retirement party a couple weeks ago – I was the only one using a film camera.
That’s it? Your limited observations is the driver that illustrates film photographers are on the decline? Well, don’t that beat all. Limited observations have now become a hallmark method for making axiomatic statements concerning unpredictable events. Thanks Tony, It’s not my intent to hurt your feelings (not by any means) but I always appreciate a good laugh. Oh well, if I were to say my limited observations, discussions with a number of the Hollywood paparazzi crowed, and camera sales of the local Wallmart, photo stores, and many of the local One Hour developing centers indicated otherwise, that would be a humorous to you, and perhaps rightfully so, even though I could make such a truthful statement. That gets us back to basically saying all that’s being offered by anyone is opinions, not substantiated facts. The crystal ball is still cloudy and nothing has been presented to illustrate otherwise. Digital cameras now outsell film cameras – not just in dollar value, in actual numbers. And there are those, like me, merely waiting for the right company to make the right digital camera at the right price. My wife may have decided not to wait however. She got to use her sister’s digital P&S a couple days ago. Digital is not going to go away, pal. It’s like TV, you can love it, or you can hate it, but it’s here to stay and radio is not comin’ back.
I know radio is not coming back, cause it never went away. But besides the obfuscation attempt: Who said digital is going to go away. Thinking back on the posts on this subject a common thinking (as well as my own) has been that digital pictures are here to stay, that has been recognized, but not necessarily because of the use of digital cameras. As I see this issue, your position has been that digital cameras will eventually replace all film cameras (except for the effete photographer) and I don’t share that opinion. Nothing authoritative has been presented to support one theory over another. So (shrug) who cares? It seems the only ones who care are those who tenaciously want to convince others, with no supporting evidence, that digital cameras are on the worldwide trend of replacing film cameras (when so many digital cameras have been listed on auction sites and the local shops in my area have refused to even list them on their shelves as consignment sales). Hells-bells, I can have all the digital pictures I want even though I don’t, and have no desire to, own a digital camera. If I thought digital cameras (of any brand) would improve, enhance, or greatly assist my picture taking expertise (such as it is) I would have a couple, with or without anyone’s condescending approval. The plain fact of the matter is, there is absolutely nothing preventing me or anyone else from making, procuring, sending, printing, storing, etc.. etc.. digital pictures without the need of a digital camera. I can think of a lot of other ways to throw away money and enjoy an associated fantasy more. If there have been posts that predict the demise of digital pictures as such, I must have missed them. Nick Was it Barnum who said, "there’s a sucker born every minute?" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html What evidence is there to support your claim that the number of film photographers are on the decline? Remember, film photography is world wide. Nick I said nothing of the future – I can have a lab print digital files TODAY. You can have it done, anyone can have it done. Digital is here. It is only a fad in the same way that photography is a fad. In the future digital will improve, as will film. However the number of film photographers is on the decline now and will continue on that path until film is very much a specialty hobby. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html And you are still ignoring the truth in order to make your point. I can bring a floppy disc, memory stick, flash card, portable hard disc, or entire bloody computer to my local lab (or electronicly send the files for that matter) and have prints made JUST LIKE WITH FILM. Your entire argument is based on ignorance. Sure you can but there are a lot of considerations that you haven’t surfaced and I don’t want to nor will I get into that. Personally, I think this whole debate is fixated only on opinions perhaps supported by wishful thinking and as such they must be recognized as being opinions. As to JR’s post being based upon ignorance, I don’t believe that. I believe he has stated his opinions based upon his experiences, preferences, and how he perceives what the future may be. There is nothing ignorant about that. Nobody knows definitely what the future may be. One may speak pro or con of the future of photography with convincing authoritative certainty but it’s still crystal ball gazing and a foggy crystal ball at that. Nick Snip
Response:
This is off topic but DVD audio players would play CDs as well…No need to replace your CD collection and unless you have heard the full spectrum of sound that a CD player wont reproduce and A/B them, you don’t know what you are missing. CD players sound great compared to what they were initially supposed to replace..Cassette tapes. They are convenient and durable…just old technology.
Hi JR, Old technology? Just like the gasoline engine, jet engine, rockets, cathode ray tubes and computer keyboards? I see what you mean. <g — Best regards, Tony Polson
Response:
The problem is that the installed base of audio CD users is very large and the majority of them will not easily be convinced to change to DVD. With more than 600 CDs I will NEVER change — I’ll hoard old CD players if I have to. Besides, there isn’t any reason to change — CDs are so good that any improvements can only be appreciated by one’s imagination (sort of like $1,000 speaker cables). Not that there aren’t some bad CDs out there but the remasters/reissues are taking care of that . . .
This is off topic but DVD audio players would play CDs as well…No need to replace your CD collection and unless you have heard the full spectrum of sound that a CD player wont reproduce and A/B them, you don’t know what you are missing. CD players sound great compared to what they were initially supposed to replace..Cassette tapes. They are convenient and durable…just old technology. JR
Response:
The problem is that the installed base of audio CD users is very large and the majority of them will not easily be convinced to change to DVD.
With more than 600 CDs I will NEVER change — I’ll hoard old CD players if I have to. Besides, there isn’t any reason to change — CDs are so good that any improvements can only be appreciated by one’s imagination (sort of like $1,000 speaker cables). Not that there aren’t some bad CDs out there but the remasters/reissues are taking care of that . . .
Response:
The number of people I see switching from 35mm P&Ss to digital P&Ss. The number of digital cameras I see in the hands of reporters on the news programs. THe number of people showing off their brand new digicams nearly everywhere I go. I went to a retirement party a couple weeks ago – I was the only one using a film camera. Digital cameras now outsell film cameras – not just in dollar value, in actual numbers. And there are those, like me, merely waiting for the right company to make the right digital camera at the right price. My wife may have decided not to wait however. She got to use her sister’s digital P&S a couple days ago. Digital is not going to go away, pal. It’s like TV, you can love it, or you can hate it, but it’s here to stay and radio is not comin’ back. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What evidence is there to support your claim that the number of film photographers are on the decline? Remember, film photography is world wide. Nick I said nothing of the future – I can have a lab print digital files TODAY. You can have it done, anyone can have it done. Digital is here. It is only a fad in the same way that photography is a fad. In the future digital will improve, as will film. However the number of film photographers is on the decline now and will continue on that path until film is very much a specialty hobby. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html And you are still ignoring the truth in order to make your point. I can bring a floppy disc, memory stick, flash card, portable hard disc, or entire bloody computer to my local lab (or electronicly send the files for that matter) and have prints made JUST LIKE WITH FILM. Your entire argument is based on ignorance. Sure you can but there are a lot of considerations that you haven’t surfaced and I don’t want to nor will I get into that. Personally, I think this whole debate is fixated only on opinions perhaps supported by wishful thinking and as such they must be recognized as being opinions. As to JR’s post being based upon ignorance, I don’t believe that. I believe he has stated his opinions based upon his experiences, preferences, and how he perceives what the future may be. There is nothing ignorant about that. Nobody knows definitely what the future may be. One may speak pro or con of the future of photography with convincing authoritative certainty but it’s still crystal ball gazing and a foggy crystal ball at that. Nick Snip
Response:
As to CD’s (not all digital mediums) being inferior to analog mediums…which was my original point. Sony dropped the ball and cut corners.
This is wildly off-topic, but this discussion implies that Sony (alone) developed the CD format. IIRC, it was actually a joint venture between Sony and Phillips of the Netherlands. Just thought the credit (or brickbats) should go where they are deserved. — David Littlewood
Response:
And you are still ignoring the truth in order to make your point. I can bring a floppy disc, memory stick, flash card, portable hard disc, or entire bloody computer to my local lab (or electronicly send the files for that matter) and have prints made JUST LIKE WITH FILM.
That’s fine for you but I just packed up my PC (not quite as portable as my 35mm film cartridge), took it down the local chemists and they just laughed at me! We tried putting it in one of the film envelopes but they don’t appear to be designed for the standard PC size. Then I realised I’d be without my computer for a while so I gave up. — http://www.wadmag.org.uk http://uk.geocities.com/ukwebring – UK Motorcycle site webring
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As to CD’s (not all digital mediums) being inferior to analog mediums…which was my original point. Sony dropped the ball and cut corners. They decided that since we cannot hear above 22.05K hertz, then to reproduce that frequency response a digital sample rate of 44.1 thousand samples per second is required. Which chops off all frequencies above 22.050. What they didn’t realize is that the frequencies above 22.050 kilohertz have a harmonic effect on frequencies below 22.050 kilohertz. So what they were doing was eliminating a complete spectrum of audio. This is why DVD’s are 96K, not 44.1K as CD’s. This is why audio professionals are trying to make the DVD audio disk a standard. A musician works hard to make music and it gets chopped and will never sound the way it does in the recording studio because the delivery medium (CD) will never produce the frequency response of the original Analog reecording tape. Not to mention 16 bit audio vs. 24 bit audio….. Ignorance? I think not…..this is factual.
Hi JR, Yes, it’s factual and it’s also very well put. Unfortunately Sony, who developed CD audio jointly with Philips of Eindhoven in the Netherlands, had no realistic option but to offer a system that was realistically achievable and reliable using the technology that was available at the time. This is what placed the 44MHz upper limit on the sampling frequency. Don’t forget that the main advantages over vinyl LP discs were: (1) a massively improved signal to noise ratio, and (2) longevity of the medium. These advantages were both successfully achieved. Yes, as with other technologies, something better became available before long, just like in photography. Perhaps a Philips or Sony audio CD is now the equivalent of a 1 megapixel digital camera – outclassed by later technology. The problem is that the installed base of audio CD users is very large and the majority of them will not easily be convinced to change to DVD. — Best regards, Tony Polson
Response:
And you are still ignoring the truth in order to make your point. I can bring a floppy disc, memory stick, flash card, portable hard disc, or entire bloody computer to my local lab (or electronicly send the files for that matter) and have prints made JUST LIKE WITH FILM. Your entire argument is based on ignorance.
I never said you couldn’t do the same stuff with limitations. Yes you can go to the lab and make prints from digital media….But the MARKETING of digital is "Do it without the lab", right? "Make prints from your computer!", "No more 1 hour labs!". All that is the marketing to CONSUMERS for the digital format. PRO digital has its own uses and none of the marketing applies. But…since digital is MARKETED as being easier and better, I disagree because my mother would have a much harder time making digital prints than using a P&S film camera, or APS for that matter. If she has to cart any parts of her computer, or media to the lab, what is the advantage over film? As to CDs replacing lps – Yeah it was a big Japanese conspiracy – right. Audiophile lps are considered to be at their best for 10 playings, after which the sound is compromised – If you don’t happen to drop the needle on one the first time you put it on the turntable. As I remember audiophile lps retail for 25 to 50 dollars. Every CD I own still sounds like new, and the most expensive of them were about 15 bucks – most less, and frequently a lot less.
As to CD’s (not all digital mediums) being inferior to analog mediums…which was my original point. Sony dropped the ball and cut corners. They decided that since we cannot hear above 22.05K hertz, then to reproduce that frequency response a digital sample rate of 44.1 thousand samples per second is required. Which chops off all frequencies above 22.050. What they didn’t realize is that the frequencies above 22.050 kilohertz have a harmonic effect on frequencies below 22.050 kilohertz. So what they were doing was eliminating a complete spectrum of audio. This is why DVD’s are 96K, not 44.1K as CD’s. This is why audio professionals are trying to make the DVD audio disk a standard. A musician works hard to make music and it gets chopped and will never sound the way it does in the recording studio because the delivery medium (CD) will never produce the frequency response of the original Analog reecording tape. Not to mention 16 bit audio vs. 24 bit audio….. Ignorance? I think not…..this is factual. I am not anti digital, actually the opposite. I wish digital was here, today, as they hype it. It isn’t, at least not at affordable prices. Yet. I am not saying that it isn’t selling or you can’t get goo pics from one. I am saying that at this point, film systems are more functional for me in some areas than a digital system. It WILL change in the future. JR
Response:
What evidence is there to support your claim that the number of film photographers are on the decline? Remember, film photography is world wide. Nick – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I said nothing of the future – I can have a lab print digital files TODAY. You can have it done, anyone can have it done. Digital is here. It is only a fad in the same way that photography is a fad. In the future digital will improve, as will film. However the number of film photographers is on the decline now and will continue on that path until film is very much a specialty hobby. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html And you are still ignoring the truth in order to make your point. I can bring a floppy disc, memory stick, flash card, portable hard disc, or entire bloody computer to my local lab (or electronicly send the files for that matter) and have prints made JUST LIKE WITH FILM. Your entire argument is based on ignorance. Sure you can but there are a lot of considerations that you haven’t surfaced and I don’t want to nor will I get into that. Personally, I think this whole debate is fixated only on opinions perhaps supported by wishful thinking and as such they must be recognized as being opinions. As to JR’s post being based upon ignorance, I don’t believe that. I believe he has stated his opinions based upon his experiences, preferences, and how he perceives what the future may be. There is nothing ignorant about that. Nobody knows definitely what the future may be. One may speak pro or con of the future of photography with convincing authoritative certainty but it’s still crystal ball gazing and a foggy crystal ball at that. Nick Snip
Response:
It’s a fad, Tony. Accept it. Both digital and talking motion pictures will disappear any time now.
Don’t forget computers and the internet. Soon we’ll all have to go back to being pen pals. EC
Response:
Are talking motion pictures still around? — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s a fad, Tony. Accept it. Both digital and talking motion pictures will disappear any time now. Mike I said nothing of the future – I can have a lab print digital files TODAY. You can have it done, anyone can have it done. Digital is here. It is only a fad in the same way that photography is a fad. In the future digital will improve, as will film. However the number of film photographers is on the decline now and will continue on that path until film is very much a specialty hobby. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html And you are still ignoring the truth in order to make your point. I can bring a floppy disc, memory stick, flash card, portable hard disc, or entire bloody computer to my local lab (or electronicly send the files for that matter) and have prints made JUST LIKE WITH FILM. Your entire argument is based on ignorance. Sure you can but there are a lot of considerations that you haven’t surfaced and I don’t want to nor will I get into that. Personally, I think this whole debate is fixated only on opinions perhaps supported by wishful thinking and as such they must be recognized as being opinions. As to JR’s post being based upon ignorance, I don’t believe that. I believe he has stated his opinions based upon his experiences, preferences, and how he perceives what the future may be. There is nothing ignorant about that. Nobody knows definitely what the future may be. One may speak pro or con of the future of photography with convincing authoritative certainty but it’s still crystal ball gazing and a foggy crystal ball at that. Nick Snip
Response:
It’s a fad, Tony. Accept it. Both digital and talking motion pictures will disappear any time now.
So will color. Who needs color when the whole world is black and white?
Response:
It’s a fad, Tony. Accept it. Both digital and talking motion pictures will disappear any time now. Mike
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I said nothing of the future – I can have a lab print digital files TODAY. You can have it done, anyone can have it done. Digital is here. It is only a fad in the same way that photography is a fad. In the future digital will improve, as will film. However the number of film photographers is on the decline now and will continue on that path until film is very much a specialty hobby. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html And you are still ignoring the truth in order to make your point. I can bring a floppy disc, memory stick, flash card, portable hard disc, or entire bloody computer to my local lab (or electronicly send the files for that matter) and have prints made JUST LIKE WITH FILM. Your entire argument is based on ignorance. Sure you can but there are a lot of considerations that you haven’t surfaced and I don’t want to nor will I get into that. Personally, I think this whole debate is fixated only on opinions perhaps supported by wishful thinking and as such they must be recognized as being opinions. As to JR’s post being based upon ignorance, I don’t believe that. I believe he has stated his opinions based upon his experiences, preferences, and how he perceives what the future may be. There is nothing ignorant about that. Nobody knows definitely what the future may be. One may speak pro or con of the future of photography with convincing authoritative certainty but it’s still crystal ball gazing and a foggy crystal ball at that. Nick Snip
Response:
I said nothing of the future – I can have a lab print digital files TODAY. You can have it done, anyone can have it done. Digital is here. It is only a fad in the same way that photography is a fad. In the future digital will improve, as will film. However the number of film photographers is on the decline now and will continue on that path until film is very much a specialty hobby. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And you are still ignoring the truth in order to make your point. I can bring a floppy disc, memory stick, flash card, portable hard disc, or entire bloody computer to my local lab (or electronicly send the files for that matter) and have prints made JUST LIKE WITH FILM. Your entire argument is based on ignorance. Sure you can but there are a lot of considerations that you haven’t surfaced and I don’t want to nor will I get into that. Personally, I think this whole debate is fixated only on opinions perhaps supported by wishful thinking and as such they must be recognized as being opinions. As to JR’s post being based upon ignorance, I don’t believe that. I believe he has stated his opinions based upon his experiences, preferences, and how he perceives what the future may be. There is nothing ignorant about that. Nobody knows definitely what the future may be. One may speak pro or con of the future of photography with convincing authoritative certainty but it’s still crystal ball gazing and a foggy crystal ball at that. Nick Snip
Response:
And you are still ignoring the truth in order to make your point. I can bring a floppy disc, memory stick, flash card, portable hard disc, or entire bloody computer to my local lab (or electronicly send the files for that matter) and have prints made JUST LIKE WITH FILM. Your entire argument is based on ignorance.
Sure you can but there are a lot of considerations that you haven’t surfaced and I don’t want to nor will I get into that. Personally, I think this whole debate is fixated only on opinions perhaps supported by wishful thinking and as such they must be recognized as being opinions. As to JR’s post being based upon ignorance, I don’t believe that. I believe he has stated his opinions based upon his experiences, preferences, and how he perceives what the future may be. There is nothing ignorant about that. Nobody knows definitely what the future may be. One may speak pro or con of the future of photography with convincing authoritative certainty but it’s still crystal ball gazing and a foggy crystal ball at that. Nick – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Snip
Response:
And you are still ignoring the truth in order to make your point. I can bring a floppy disc, memory stick, flash card, portable hard disc, or entire bloody computer to my local lab (or electronicly send the files for that matter) and have prints made JUST LIKE WITH FILM. Your entire argument is based on ignorance. As to CDs replacing lps – Yeah it was a big Japanese conspiracy – right. Audiophile lps are considered to be at their best for 10 playings, after which the sound is compromised – If you don’t happen to drop the needle on one the first time you put it on the turntable. As I remember audiophile lps retail for 25 to 50 dollars. Every CD I own still sounds like new, and the most expensive of them were about 15 bucks – most less, and frequently a lot less. I probably owned 10 sets of Beethovan’s symphonies through the lp era (I won’t count the couple 78 rpm collections I was given as they were not complete. Every one of those sets was eventually tossed out as un-playable. I particularly hated losing records this way, as I rarely could find the same set still in print, and would have to accostom myself to a new and sometimes less interesting interpretation. I now have two CD sets – both in perfect condition. If I hear another set I like as much I might buy a third. But I won’t be tossing any out. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Boy was I misunderstood. I NEVER said that the technology wasn’t going to get BETTER than film at some point. And I would REALLY like to see a 3 year old shoot, download images to a PC from a digital camera, edit and print them. What I was saying was in response to the post of 35mm being a fad. Which it isn’t. I beleive that digital is more of a fad because of its consumer uses at this point. The marketing hype has made the average P&S consumer believe that digital is much better than film. Which isn’t always the truth and the average users that I know have found this out the hard way. Most don’t want to download, edit, retouch and print out images. My fiance’ for example would rather buy a disposable camera than let me buy her an SLR system because she has no desire to learn about photograophy. She definately doesn’t want to learn photoshop, or the intricacies of making great inkjet prints. She sees the time and effort that it takes and would rather shoot and develop. It was also said that I wouldn’y buy digital before 8 years. Not true. I almost bought a coolpix 995, but didn’t because of the limitations. I almost bought a D1x, but didn’t because of the limitations and price. I am seriously considering the new Minolta. It looks good on paper, but we will see. I will buy digital when the quality, ease, and performance exceed my F100. Until then I will shoot film, then scan. That works for ME, and others may well be using digital today and it may work for them. Now to a few questions from my original reply. Yes CD’s are MUCH cheaper to manufacture than LP’s. But the price has increased for consumers. (Retail price) Artists still receive the same royalty rate (based on wholesale price), even though the record company spends less for manufacturing. A VERY sore spot in the music industry since the CD. Sony holds the patent and yes was involved in the music industry via Coliumbia. If you recall the first acts available on CD were Columbia affiliated acts, and Sony reduced LP manufacturing so LP’s were not easily available. It is not a coincidence that Sony Music is now the biggest music entity in the world. They then licensed the technology to others and make money from every player sold as well. They learned from their mistake with teh Beta VCR. Which was a better format than VHS in terms of quality, but Sony didn’t licence the technology. JVC on the other hand licensed nthe VHS technology to everyone and the market was flooded with VHS machines. SO to wrap it up….Digital is here to stay, will get better, and more affordable. Yes eventually we will all be using digital. Right now….for me, more hype than performance. In 2 years? Things will change. JR
Response:
Boy was I misunderstood. I NEVER said that the technology wasn’t going to get BETTER than film at some point. And I would REALLY like to see a 3 year old shoot, download images to a PC from a digital camera, edit and print them. What I was saying was in response to the post of 35mm being a fad. Which it isn’t. I beleive that digital is more of a fad because of its consumer uses at this point. The marketing hype has made the average P&S consumer believe that digital is much better than film. Which isn’t always the truth and the average users that I know have found this out the hard way. Most don’t want to download, edit, retouch and print out images. My fiance’ for example would rather buy a disposable camera than let me buy her an SLR system because she has no desire to learn about photograophy. She definately doesn’t want to learn photoshop, or the intricacies of making great inkjet prints. She sees the time and effort that it takes and would rather shoot and develop. It was also said that I wouldn’y buy digital before 8 years. Not true. I almost bought a coolpix 995, but didn’t because of the limitations. I almost bought a D1x, but didn’t because of the limitations and price. I am seriously considering the new Minolta. It looks good on paper, but we will see. I will buy digital when the quality, ease, and performance exceed my F100. Until then I will shoot film, then scan. That works for ME, and others may well be using digital today and it may work for them. Now to a few questions from my original reply. Yes CD’s are MUCH cheaper to manufacture than LP’s. But the price has increased for consumers. (Retail price) Artists still receive the same royalty rate (based on wholesale price), even though the record company spends less for manufacturing. A VERY sore spot in the music industry since the CD. Sony holds the patent and yes was involved in the music industry via Coliumbia. If you recall the first acts available on CD were Columbia affiliated acts, and Sony reduced LP manufacturing so LP’s were not easily available. It is not a coincidence that Sony Music is now the biggest music entity in the world. They then licensed the technology to others and make money from every player sold as well. They learned from their mistake with teh Beta VCR. Which was a better format than VHS in terms of quality, but Sony didn’t licence the technology. JVC on the other hand licensed nthe VHS technology to everyone and the market was flooded with VHS machines. SO to wrap it up….Digital is here to stay, will get better, and more affordable. Yes eventually we will all be using digital. Right now….for me, more hype than performance. In 2 years? Things will change. JR
Response:
Posted in Minolta 35mm | 
No Comments » | 
— Best regards, Tony Polson 