On Jun 21, 2006, at 2:25 PM, Bob W wrote: > ... Whatever it has given me, is it so much better than what I have > with > film that it justifies all that cost and time? ...
This is like a slide I saw in the movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth". A government agency put up a slide in a presentation on environmental concerns with a balance, one side of which had a bunch of bars of gold and the other side had the Earth. The title was something like "Economic Balance". Mmm. Them gold bars look nice. Yeah, they do. We shouldn't overspend and put the economy at risk. On the other hand, if the world becomes uninhabitable ... You see, whether you like it or not, there is no development money going into the making of film, film cameras, film process, etc. There will be film for some time to come, maybe for the rest of your and my life. If so, and if you're happy with what you can do with film now, enjoy and be merry because what's happening in the medium won't affect you one whit. But if film becomes unavailable and you still want to enjoy the art of photography, you're back in the same position you are now with regard to learning, equipment, etc. Personally, I'd rather accept what's happening and enjoy it than reject it and be grumpy. I like doing photography, and I don't mean mixing chemistry and trying to reinvent film emulsions, reminiscing about how good it used to be when The Great Yellow Father was in its heyday. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
