Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Humourous take: Digital vs film

Reply
Thread Tools

Humourous take: Digital vs film

 
 
Siddhartha Jain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2004
I am tired of the never-ending holy wars about digital vs film. So for
a change: a humourous take on the whole thing.

Yesterday film zealots and digital crusaders clashed again for the
umpteenth time after talks to co-exist failed at rec.photo. While film
zealots demanded that digital crusaders sign a public announcment
declaring film's never-ending superiority, digital crusaders demanded
that film zealots cave in and buy atleast one digital camera each.

The continuing violence has already claimed gigabits of bandwidth,
several dead keyboards and mice. In response to this the UN secretary
general has constituted a fact finding team to get to the bottom of the
issue and has urged member nations to pass a resolution condemning the
violence.

In the midst of this researchers might've struck a breakthrough to
break the continuing deadlock. Extensive research, still in its early
stages, seems to indicate that people can use both digital and film as
long as they are happy with the results. But both camps were quick to
dismiss the news as heresy.
================================================== ==
Didn't find it funny? Post your own take )

- Siddhartha

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Julian Tan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2004
Heresy! For this you will die infidel!

Lol... great quip, keep up the good work.
Jules
--
Shuttertalk
http://www.shuttertalk.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jon Pike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2004
"Siddhartha Jain" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com:

> I am tired of the never-ending holy wars about digital vs film. So for
> a change: a humourous take on the whole thing.

-snip-

it's cute


--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike F
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2004
Very good (and very true too !!)

mikey

"Siddhartha Jain" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> I am tired of the never-ending holy wars about digital vs film. So for
> a change: a humourous take on the whole thing.
>
> Yesterday film zealots and digital crusaders clashed again for the
> umpteenth time after talks to co-exist failed at rec.photo. While film
> zealots demanded that digital crusaders sign a public announcment
> declaring film's never-ending superiority, digital crusaders demanded
> that film zealots cave in and buy atleast one digital camera each.
>
> The continuing violence has already claimed gigabits of bandwidth,
> several dead keyboards and mice. In response to this the UN secretary
> general has constituted a fact finding team to get to the bottom of the
> issue and has urged member nations to pass a resolution condemning the
> violence.
>
> In the midst of this researchers might've struck a breakthrough to
> break the continuing deadlock. Extensive research, still in its early
> stages, seems to indicate that people can use both digital and film as
> long as they are happy with the results. But both camps were quick to
> dismiss the news as heresy.
> ================================================== ==
> Didn't find it funny? Post your own take )
>
> - Siddhartha
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr Jessop
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2004
We the peoples film liberation army declare a jehad on you infidels. Those
of you who defile the name photography with your digitalist ways will the
know the true meaning of images when we begin strapping large numbers of
digital camaeras to our bodies and diving into swimming pools. The lives of
the local swimmers will be electrocuted for the betterment of mankind.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2004
Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> I am tired of the never-ending holy wars about digital vs film. So for
> a change: a humourous take on the whole thing.
>
> Yesterday film zealots and digital crusaders clashed again for the
> umpteenth time after talks to co-exist failed at rec.photo. While film
> zealots demanded that digital crusaders sign a public announcment
> declaring film's never-ending superiority, digital crusaders demanded
> that film zealots cave in and buy atleast one digital camera each.
>

<snip>

Mr Jessop wrote:
> We the peoples film liberation army declare a jehad on you infidels.
> Those of you who defile the name photography with your digitalist
> ways will the know the true meaning of images when we begin strapping
> large numbers of digital camaeras to our bodies and diving into
> swimming pools. The lives of the local swimmers will be electrocuted
> for the betterment of mankind.



Nicely done, both. Thank youse.


Let's see. Headlines:

FILMIES IN LAST STAND !
Leaders Found Buried
In A Mound Of Little
Ones And Ohs


DIGITAL LIBERATION FRONT
OUTFLANKS FILMIES !
Laughingly Query:
"When Was The Last Time
You Saw A (Shudder) Anal-og Image
On The Front Page?"


--
Frank ess


 
Reply With Quote
 
Eolake Stobblehouse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2004

FILM IS JUST INHERENTLY SUPERIOR, NOW AND IN A HUNDRED YEARS.
And there is nothing you can do about it.

FACT: 50 students at UCLA were asked to count the individual grains in
a frame of Fuji Velvia. It took them four months, but it was worth it:
there were 72,786,445 grains. And anecdotal evidence clearly shows that
you can't get more than 40,000,000 million pixels in a digital chip,
due to, uh, Moore's law. So there.

Also, Ansel Adams photographed on film, and I can't imagine him using
digital. I rest my case.

--
- Eolake
--
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
http://MacCreator.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2004

"Eolake Stobblehouse" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:111220041819000537%(E-Mail Removed) ve.net...
>
> FILM IS JUST INHERENTLY SUPERIOR, NOW AND IN A HUNDRED YEARS.
> And there is nothing you can do about it.
>
> FACT: 50 students at UCLA were asked to count the individual grains in
> a frame of Fuji Velvia. It took them four months, but it was worth it:
> there were 72,786,445 grains. And anecdotal evidence clearly shows that
> you can't get more than 40,000,000 million pixels in a digital chip,
> due to, uh, Moore's law. So there.
>
> Also, Ansel Adams photographed on film, and I can't imagine him using
> digital. I rest my case.
>
> --
> - Eolake
> --
> (E-Mail Removed)
> http://MacCreator.com


Sorry but everything you have said just doesn't matter and no one cares.
Each and every person will use whatever tools they find suitable to do the
particular task they are doing.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Eolake Stobblehouse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2004
In article <MDHud.68907$(E-Mail Removed)>, Pete D
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Eolake Stobblehouse" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:111220041819000537%(E-Mail Removed) ve.net...
> >
> > FILM IS JUST INHERENTLY SUPERIOR, NOW AND IN A HUNDRED YEARS.
> > And there is nothing you can do about it.
> >
> > FACT: 50 students at UCLA were asked to count the individual grains in
> > a frame of Fuji Velvia. It took them four months, but it was worth it:
> > there were 72,786,445 grains. And anecdotal evidence clearly shows that
> > you can't get more than 40,000,000 million pixels in a digital chip,
> > due to, uh, Moore's law. So there.
> >
> > Also, Ansel Adams photographed on film, and I can't imagine him using
> > digital. I rest my case.
> >
> > --
> > - Eolake
> > --
> > (E-Mail Removed)
> > http://MacCreator.com

>
> Sorry but everything you have said just doesn't matter and no one cares.
> Each and every person will use whatever tools they find suitable to do the
> particular task they are doing.
>


It's a spoof, dude. Lookkit the headline.

--
- Eolake
--
(E-Mail Removed)
http://MacCreator.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Weitzel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2004



<snip>

>>>FACT: 50 students at UCLA were asked to count the individual grains in
>>>a frame of Fuji Velvia. It took them four months, but it was worth it:
>>>there were 72,786,445 grains. And anecdotal evidence clearly shows that


I demand a recount!

Ken

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What a mistaka to maka (humourous) GraB NZ Computing 3 12-22-2005 09:26 PM
Ultimate digital vs film: 1gp digital vs SR71 reconnaissance cameras brian Digital Photography 108 12-18-2004 10:01 PM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner Mike Digital Photography 6 07-05-2004 06:06 PM
digital images: from film vs from digital camera H. S. Digital Photography 10 11-08-2003 06:52 PM



Advertisments