> > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/07/03 Mon AM 02:17:05 GMT > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Coming Soon - A new K-mount Film Camera > > I think Godder's response is justified and well put. This film vs. > digital argument has been rehashed here ad infinitum, with all parties > advancing the same positions over and over again. It has become a waste > of time. G is right. Everyone should shoot what please them, and no one > should waste time defending that choice. > Paul
Except..... When film was the only medium, there was a huge number of options for the user. Ultra fine grain, ultra coarse grain. B&W, print, slide. IR, UV sensitive. At least four major formats, subdivided. Many photographers became specialist in a specific niche of film use. Some of those do not yet have a digital equivalent or have to use some form of workaround. The hobbyist photography industry works (in theory, at least) from consumer demand. If the people whose needs are not met do not voice their requirements, how does the industry know what their demands are? Or should the industry now only service the mainstream? > On Jul 2, 2006, at 9:18 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > > > Nothing you've written here was not fully understood by everyone. > > The idea was to share feelings, choices and preferences that relate to > > photography. > > A brisk exchange that should be encouraged rather than belittled as > > trite and unworthy of discussion. > >> From my take on your past contributions, it surprises me that your > >> mood > > is so contrary and critical of a variety of well meant and in some > > cases, reluctant, less than confident and secure contributors. > > > > Jack > > > > --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Frankly, this whole argument is a waste of time. > >> > >> You want prints? Print your pictures. It doesn't matter what medium > >> you've got. > >> You want to use film? Use it. > >> You prefer digital? Good for you. > >> > >> There's nothing to prove or argue one way or another. Nothing was > >> "rammed down my throat". I was not "sold a bill of goods". I worked > >> with film for the better part of four decades because it was all > >> there was, realistically speaking. Now I'm working with new cameras > >> that are more capable for my purposes. > >> > >> Most of the people I know who used to shoot a roll of film or two per > >> > >> year have purchased digital cameras and now make many more, and > >> better, photographs than they used to. Some print them, some keep > >> them on their computers. That includes my 83 year old mother. They're > >> > >> happier with the number of pictures they see now. So be it. > >> > >> If the digital cameras today don't suit you, or your grandmother, use > >> > >> a film camera and enjoy it. It won't affect what I do. I'll do what I > >> > >> need to, with either film or sensor, to make the photographs I want > >> to now and in the future. > >> > >> So much ado over fookin' nothin'. > >> > >> Godfrey > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> [email protected] > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
