«

I was on AOL tonight and noticed a name from the past in my online
Buddy List (and no, it wasn't D-Mac). One of the things I always
liked about AOL was that you could make a Buddy List and it would tell
you which of your buddies are currently online.
Then you could simply IM (Instant Message) them and talk to them.
Back when I was hot **** on AOL, I would have as many as 6 IM's open
at once with different people. It's how I learned to type so fast
(and believe me, typing with one hand ain't easy).

I still have all my old people that I used to talk to 10 years ago in
my list, some famous, some not. Anyway, tonight I noticed a guy who I
haven't talked with in years who was a very serious photographer in
NYC. I remember that he used a Sinar P-something camera and the guy
couldn't stand digital (it was still in it's infancy when we last
spoke). In other words, he was the evil Anti-Annika.

So I was interested to see if his views had changed any or if he had
become just another film luddite.

Anyway, I enjoyed the chance to speak with the guy and I saved the
conversation hoping that others might find it interesting reading. It
is a bit long so you might wanna go grab a favorite beverage before
you sit back to enjoy.
I won't reveal my friend's name or his actual identity (that I just
learned tonight) so I'll just call him "PhotoDude."
Also remember that this was an IM conversation so sometimes one person
(me) will type two or three lines before the other has a chance to
answer.
But here is the text of the conversation with only some personal stuff
snipped:
======================================

Annika1980: Taken any good pics lately?
PhotoDude: hi there, I'm actually on a photo trip as we speak, how
are you?
Annika1980: fine. where are ya?
PhotoDude: Idaho, then up to Montana in a day or 2
PhotoDude: what have you been up to?

Annika1980: sounds like fun. getting any good pics up there?
PhotoDude: not yet in Idaho, I was in utah last week and got some
good ones there
PhotoDude: what's new with you?
Annika1980: well, since i haven't talked to you in about 5-6 years
years, everything
PhotoDude: such as?
Annika1980: i shoot almost all digital now. Canon, of course
Annika1980: you still got that Sinar?
PhotoDude: yep and other film cameras
Annika1980: no digital?
PhotoDude: I have a leica digital but that's for vacation snaps, I
shoot film for my real work
Annika1980: Leicas are for posers.

Annika1980: are you like famous?
PhotoDude: I'm getting there
Annika1980: atta baby.
i rememeber you showing me a pic of a fork or something like that
PhotoDude: I do mostly landscape now
Annika1980: got a website? i'd love to see them
Annika1980: weren't you shooting fashion or something back in the
day?
PhotoDude: I'm not big on giving out my name on aol, but I'll email
you a sample, I used to do advertising photography
Annika1980: i like nature photography
here's one I took the other day
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/75457158

Annika1980: you can check out my other galleries there as well.
Annika1980: i can understand your privacy concerns. you haven't
changed much in that respect.
Annika1980: your name is still in my buddy list and yet i don't even
know who you are. kinda weird.
PhotoDude I like the photo of the heron, good capture

(He sends me a link to his website)

Annika1980: glad to meet ya. finally.
e-mail some pics when you get a chance. maybe something from your
current trip
Annika1980: hey, i've got a Q. for ya
PhotoDude: mail, what's the q?
Annika1980: where is the money to be made in photography these days?
besides fashion and advertising (since i'm not in NYC)

(He then e-mailed me one of his photos ... B/W of course)

Annika1980: nice photo. a little too artsy-fartsy for me, but hey
Annika1980: also, how do you sell your work?
PhotoDude: advertising is not what it used to be, I'm out of it and
now make my living selling prints through galleries across the US
Annika1980: sounds like what I should be doing
Annika1980: or at least that's what some tell me
PhotoDude: it's not that easy, it's very competitive and you need to
be artsy
Annika1980: yeah, i know. the duller the better
PhotoDude: not dull
Annika1980: not too many collectors buying full color pics of herons
these days
PhotoDude: nope but they pay as much as $4000 for one of my B&W
prints, artsy works

Annika1980: have you ever tried doing any books?
Annika1980: what size prints do you usually sell?
PhotoDude: I did 2 books already, but not books of my personal work,
I've had several offers but didn't have enough images, after this trip
I will
PhotoDude: 14", 20" 24" 40"
Annika1980: sounds like everything is going well for you. i'm glad.

Annika1980: i think in your biz its kind of a snowball effect. once
you get your name out there the market gets more and more lucrative
for you
PhotoDude: yep, name recognition matters greatly
Annika1980: a bit too greatly some would say

Annika1980: i think the photography world is going downhill now that
every idiot with a cellphone cam thinks he's ansel adams
PhotoDude: yep, digital has had a hand in that

Annika1980: do you photograph what you love to photograph or do you
photograph what sells?
PhotoDude: I photograph what I want, I'm lucky that what I like to
look at is also appreciated by others
Annika1980: yes, very lucky indeed.

PhotoDude: lucky yes, but it's been a lot of hard work for a very
long time and have made a huge investment in it
Annika1980: glad we got to talk. I'll keep your website bookmarked
PhotoDude: it was good to hear from you, keep shooting

<snipped some personal stuff and some talk about high-end Audio>

PhotoDude: I travel 4-5 months a year
Annika1980: $4000 will buy lots of film and paper
PhotoDude: or a set of cables
Annika1980: tell you what .... next time you have a hankering to
spend $4K on some cables .... buy me a 1DsMKII instead and go to Radio
Shack
Annika1980: for me, it's a Catch-22. I shoot with a Canon 20D cause
I cant afford the really good gear. But if I had the really good
gear, I could probably make it selling photos
Annika1980: so i do the best i can with what i got

PhotoDude: the gear helps but it's not the gear that makes the images
good, it's the photographer, read less of the mass market photo stuff,
especially the digital stuff and start reading more art oriented photo
magazines like Lenswork
Annika1980: yeah, i listen to Brooks Jensen's (of Lenswork) podcasts
every day at work. it keeps me inspired

PhotoDude: I'm pretty set with the audio stuff, I won't be buying
that stuff for quite some time
PhotoDude: do you read the magazine, look at the images?
Annika1980: in some ways, audio technology is like film
technology .... both of them are stagnant
PhotoDude: films keep getting better, kodak just updated a bunch of
film and fuji is doing so as well
Annika1980: sometimes I look at lenswork. nice stuff, but the color
seems to be a bit off
PhotoDude: well it's a B&W magazine

Annika1980: i figured you'd be shooting with a digital back by now.
get with the program, dude!
Annika1980: if i shot landscapes i'd use a scanning back
Annika1980: like stephen johnston
PhotoDude: scanning backs take too long,like 90 seconds, that can be
a problem as clouds move, grass blows
Annika1980: Photoshop, baby!
Annika1980: multiple exposures!
PhotoDude: it's the image that matters, all that other stuff screws
up the process
Annika1980: i agree with the first half of that
PhotoDude: well, I've learned a thing or two about photography, but
do what you do

Annika1980: for the landscape shots that you take, what gear do you
usually use?
Annika1980: and which films?
PhotoDude: sinar for 6x12cm and 4x5, Fuji GX617 for 6x17cm, Fotoman
612 for 6x12cm, Fuji Gx60III for 6x8cm, Mamiya 7II for 6x7cm, Rolli
6008i for 6x6cm
PhotoDude: Tmax 100 and techpan,although techpan is discontinued
Annika1980: someday i'll let you explain to me the need for 6
cameras.

Annika1980: why not just get the digital back on the Hassy or a Phase
One back for your cameras?
Annika1980: i think all that stuff screws up the process

PhotoDude: some cameras I can fly with, some cameras are small and
are ok to take on vacation, some cameras are bigger and use bigger
film, I usually take 2 systems on a driving trip
Annika1980: yeah, wouldn't it be nice if one camera did it all?
Annika1980: oops, i forgot . the 1DsMKII does!

PhotoDude: a digital camera is not going to give the the kind of
image quality that I get with film,
Annika1980: well it's a bit late here (1:00 AM) to begin that
argument
PhotoDude: a DSLR is not going to do what a Sinar can do
Annika1980: do you think a photo like the one you just e-mailed me
could not be done with a DSLR?
PhotoDude: I can afford any camera I want, why do you think I shoot
film and use the cameras that I use?
Annika1980: because for you it is about the process as much as the
image

PhotoDude: it would not have the same image quality, also collectors
pay much more for a silver or platinum print than they do for digital
Annika1980: so I've heard
PhotoDude: I don't care about the process, I want the image
Annika1980: well if the image is all that matters then the top of the
line digital stuff like the digital backs blows away anything film can
do. but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one

Annika1980: hey, thanks for takin the time and talkin to me
Annika1980: and good luck on your career.
PhotoDude: Bret, I've been doing digital imaging professionally since
1991, I can afford any camera I want, for B&W film is the way to go,
If I shot color I would consider digital
PhotoDude: anyway, I have to get to sleep, i need to get up at 5am
tomorrow and go shoot, I'm glad you wrote,keep in touch, good luck to
you as well
Annika1980: fair enough. what do you say to people who claim that
the new digital B/W printing processes are superior to the old?
PhotoDude: I've tried them, you still need to use B&W film
Annika1980: next time we'll talk about digital printing.
Annika1980: cya
PhotoDude: take care

>>Big Snip...

Pretty funny stuff. Here's a working pro telling you that film beats digital
for landscape quality, but for some reason it didn't seem to sink in for
you. I think you need to consider his words carefully...

On Mar 15, 6:40 am, "Kinon O'Cann" <n...@not.now> wrote:
> >>Big Snip...
>
> Pretty funny stuff. Here's a working pro telling you that film beats digital
> for landscape quality, but for some reason it didn't seem to sink in for
> you. I think you need to consider his words carefully...

I think this passage is the crux of the matter:

PhotoDude: I can afford any camera I want, why do you think I shoot
film and use the cameras that I use?
Annika1980: because for you it is about the process as much as the
image

IOW, the guy does what he does the way that he does because that's
what he knows how to do. And he was making the exact same comments 8
years ago. Of course, it held a lot of truth back then since digital
was just getting started. But today his statement smacks of
ignorance.
The technology has changed, but his opinions never will.

You might have also sensed a touch of arrogance in some of his
comments like, "I'm a big fancy photographer and you aren't so what do
you know?" He's always had that. Well there are many other bigger
fancier photographers who now shoot digital who would disagree with
his views. I met the guy years ago on one of the high-end audio
groups.
He was one of the folks claiming that a $4000 set of interconnects
sounded better than a properly designed $100 pair, even if nobody
could hear the differences in a double-blind test. I would taunt him
the way I do folks here who claim that Leica is the ultimate camera
and nothing else comes close.

You don't have too many folks (excepting D-Mac) making outrageous
claims like that in the video or photographic world since the
differences are easily seen.

The photo he e-mailed me was a B/W landscape shot with a "dreamy" kind
of artsy blur to it, certainly not anything that would require a Sinar
or a MF camera. But the guy knows his market and is very successful
in the fine art world where quality takes a back seat to reputation.
You could have a portfolio of masterpieces but since you're an unknown
you'd starve to death, while some rich idiot will pay $10,000 for a
casual snap taken by Diane Arbus.

That is why the fine art galleries or a lot like the high-end audio
salons .... lotsa snake oil.

Brooks Jensen, editor of Lenswork, has some comments about that in
one of his podcasts here:

http://tinyurl.com/yt4hcp

or

http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW00...ure%20Rise.mp3

Kinon O'Cann wrote:
>>> Big Snip...
>
> Pretty funny stuff. Here's a working pro telling you that film beats digital
> for landscape quality, but for some reason it didn't seem to sink in for
> you. I think you need to consider his words carefully...

Well, and if I were making 40" prints or such I wouldn't be expecting to
do that from 35mm film, either.

Annika1980 wrote:

> I met the guy years ago on one of the high-end audio groups.
> He was one of the folks claiming that a $4000 set of interconnects
> sounded better than a properly designed $100 pair, even if nobody
> could hear the differences in a double-blind test. I would taunt him
> the way I do folks here who claim that Leica is the ultimate camera
> and nothing else comes close.

Ah, I wondered where the $4k cable crack came from; camera cables are
expensive, but not *that* expensive!

Double blind tests are my friend. On the one hand, they'll root out
lots of the idiocy; and on the other hand, they'll provide enough
evidence to convince me if one of the "weird" ideas is actually right,
despite my prejudices.

> You don't have too many folks (excepting D-Mac) making outrageous
> claims like that in the video or photographic world since the
> differences are easily seen.
>
> The photo he e-mailed me was a B/W landscape shot with a "dreamy" kind
> of artsy blur to it, certainly not anything that would require a Sinar
> or a MF camera. But the guy knows his market and is very successful
> in the fine art world where quality takes a back seat to reputation.

Well, that kind of shot probably requires really low visible grain, so
if the prints are big, I can see why it'd have to be MF or higher.
There's more to worry about than just resolution, remember.

On Mar 15, 10:10 am, "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 6:40 am, "Kinon O'Cann" <n...@not.now> wrote:
>
> > >>Big Snip...
>
> > Pretty funny stuff. Here's a working pro telling you that film beats digital
> > for landscape quality, but for some reason it didn't seem to sink in for
> > you. I think you need to consider his words carefully...
>
> I think this passage is the crux of the matter:
>
> PhotoDude: I can afford any camera I want, why do you think I shoot
> film and use the cameras that I use?
> Annika1980: because for you it is about the process as much as the
> image
>
> IOW, the guy does what he does the way that he does because that's
> what he knows how to do. And he was making the exact same comments 8
> years ago. Of course, it held a lot of truth back then since digital
> was just getting started. But today his statement smacks of
> ignorance.
> The technology has changed, but his opinions never will.
>
> You might have also sensed a touch of arrogance in some of his
> comments like, "I'm a big fancy photographer and you aren't so what do
> you know?" He's always had that. Well there are many other bigger
> fancier photographers who now shoot digital who would disagree with
> his views. I met the guy years ago on one of the high-end audio
> groups.
> He was one of the folks claiming that a $4000 set of interconnects
> sounded better than a properly designed $100 pair, even if nobody
> could hear the differences in a double-blind test. I would taunt him
> the way I do folks here who claim that Leica is the ultimate camera
> and nothing else comes close.
>
> You don't have too many folks (excepting D-Mac) making outrageous
> claims like that in the video or photographic world since the
> differences are easily seen.
>
> The photo he e-mailed me was a B/W landscape shot with a "dreamy" kind
> of artsy blur to it, certainly not anything that would require a Sinar
> or a MF camera. But the guy knows his market and is very successful
> in the fine art world where quality takes a back seat to reputation.
> You could have a portfolio of masterpieces but since you're an unknown
> you'd starve to death, while some rich idiot will pay $10,000 for a
> casual snap taken by Diane Arbus.
>
> That is why the fine art galleries or a lot like the high-end audio
> salons .... lotsa snake oil.
>
> Brooks Jensen, editor of Lenswork, has some comments about that in
> one of his podcasts here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yt4hcp
>
> or
>
> http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW00...le%20of%20What...

I think Jensen hit the nail right on the head. I couldn't agree more
with him.
Also, I feel a lot of film photographers, or a lot of people for that
matter, do not like change, and in this case, I am referring to film
vs. digital.

> You could have a portfolio of masterpieces but since you're an unknown
> you'd starve to death, while some rich idiot will pay $10,000 for a
> casual snap taken by Diane Arbus.
>

You got that right Bret! That is the first lesson I learned in
photography as an art. It is a shame really because I've seen these
$10,000. prints made by famous photographers and I wouldn't pay $10.00
for it. Total crap.
Now, I like Diane Arbus and most of her work, but I'll be damned if
I'm going to spend that much on a print of hers.
Helen

On Mar 15, 12:56 am, "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> I was on AOL tonight and noticed a name from the past in my online
> Buddy List (and no, it wasn't D-Mac). One of the things I always
> liked about AOL was that you could make a Buddy List and it would tell
> you which of your buddies are currently online.
> Then you could simply IM (Instant Message) them and talk to them.
> Back when I was hot **** on AOL, I would have as many as 6 IM's open
> at once with different people. It's how I learned to type so fast
> (and believe me, typing with one hand ain't easy).
>
> I still have all my old people that I used to talk to 10 years ago in
> my list, some famous, some not. Anyway, tonight I noticed a guy who I
> haven't talked with in years who was a very serious photographer in
> NYC. I remember that he used a Sinar P-something camera and the guy
> couldn't stand digital (it was still in it's infancy when we last
> spoke). In other words, he was the evil Anti-Annika.
>
> So I was interested to see if his views had changed any or if he had
> become just another film luddite.
>
> Anyway, I enjoyed the chance to speak with the guy and I saved the
> conversation hoping that others might find it interesting reading. It
> is a bit long so you might wanna go grab a favorite beverage before
> you sit back to enjoy.
> I won't reveal my friend's name or his actual identity (that I just
> learned tonight) so I'll just call him "PhotoDude."
> Also remember that this was an IM conversation so sometimes one person
> (me) will type two or three lines before the other has a chance to
> answer.
> But here is the text of the conversation with only some personal stuff
> snipped:
> ======================================
>
> Annika1980: Taken any good pics lately?
> PhotoDude: hi there, I'm actually on a photo trip as we speak, how
> are you?
> Annika1980: fine. where are ya?
> PhotoDude: Idaho, then up to Montana in a day or 2
> PhotoDude: what have you been up to?
>
> Annika1980: sounds like fun. getting any good pics up there?
> PhotoDude: not yet in Idaho, I was in utah last week and got some
> good ones there
> PhotoDude: what's new with you?
> Annika1980: well, since i haven't talked to you in about 5-6 years
> years, everything
> PhotoDude: such as?
> Annika1980: i shoot almost all digital now. Canon, of course
> Annika1980: you still got that Sinar?
> PhotoDude: yep and other film cameras
> Annika1980: no digital?
> PhotoDude: I have a leica digital but that's for vacation snaps, I
> shoot film for my real work
> Annika1980: Leicas are for posers.
>
> Annika1980: are you like famous?
> PhotoDude: I'm getting there
> Annika1980: atta baby.
> i rememeber you showing me a pic of a fork or something like that
> PhotoDude: I do mostly landscape now
> Annika1980: got a website? i'd love to see them
> Annika1980: weren't you shooting fashion or something back in the
> day?
> PhotoDude: I'm not big on giving out my name on aol, but I'll email
> you a sample, I used to do advertising photography
> Annika1980: i like nature photography
> here's one I took the other dayhttp://www.pbase.com/bret/image/75457158
>
> Annika1980: you can check out my other galleries there as well.
> Annika1980: i can understand your privacy concerns. you haven't
> changed much in that respect.
> Annika1980: your name is still in my buddy list and yet i don't even
> know who you are. kinda weird.
> PhotoDude I like the photo of the heron, good capture
>
> (He sends me a link to his website)
>
> Annika1980: glad to meet ya. finally.
> e-mail some pics when you get a chance. maybe something from your
> current trip
> Annika1980: hey, i've got a Q. for ya
> PhotoDude: mail, what's the q?
> Annika1980: where is the money to be made in photography these days?
> besides fashion and advertising (since i'm not in NYC)
>
> (He then e-mailed me one of his photos ... B/W of course)
>
> Annika1980: nice photo. a little too artsy-fartsy for me, but hey
> Annika1980: also, how do you sell your work?
> PhotoDude: advertising is not what it used to be, I'm out of it and
> now make my living selling prints through galleries across the US
> Annika1980: sounds like what I should be doing
> Annika1980: or at least that's what some tell me
> PhotoDude: it's not that easy, it's very competitive and you need to
> be artsy
> Annika1980: yeah, i know. the duller the better
> PhotoDude: not dull
> Annika1980: not too many collectors buying full color pics of herons
> these days
> PhotoDude: nope but they pay as much as $4000 for one of my B&W
> prints, artsy works
>
> Annika1980: have you ever tried doing any books?
> Annika1980: what size prints do you usually sell?
> PhotoDude: I did 2 books already, but not books of my personal work,
> I've had several offers but didn't have enough images, after this trip
> I will
> PhotoDude: 14", 20" 24" 40"
> Annika1980: sounds like everything is going well for you. i'm glad.
>
> Annika1980: i think in your biz its kind of a snowball effect. once
> you get your name out there the market gets more and more lucrative
> for you
> PhotoDude: yep, name recognition matters greatly
> Annika1980: a bit too greatly some would say
>
> Annika1980: i think the photography world is going downhill now that
> every idiot with a cellphone cam thinks he's ansel adams
> PhotoDude: yep, digital has had a hand in that
>
> Annika1980: do you photograph what you love to photograph or do you
> photograph what sells?
> PhotoDude: I photograph what I want, I'm lucky that what I like to
> look at is also appreciated by others
> Annika1980: yes, very lucky indeed.
>
> PhotoDude: lucky yes, but it's been a lot of hard work for a very
> long time and have made a huge investment in it
> Annika1980: glad we got to talk. I'll keep your website bookmarked
> PhotoDude: it was good to hear from you, keep shooting
>
> <snipped some personal stuff and some talk about high-end Audio>
>
> PhotoDude: I travel 4-5 months a year
> Annika1980: $4000 will buy lots of film and paper
> PhotoDude: or a set of cables
> Annika1980: tell you what .... next time you have a hankering to
> spend $4K on some cables .... buy me a 1DsMKII instead and go to Radio
> Shack
> Annika1980: for me, it's a Catch-22. I shoot with a Canon 20D cause
> I cant afford the really good gear. But if I had the really good
> gear, I could probably make it selling photos
> Annika1980: so i do the best i can with what i got
>
> PhotoDude: the gear helps but it's not the gear that makes the images
> good, it's the photographer, read less of the mass market photo stuff,
> especially the digital stuff and start reading more art oriented photo
> magazines like Lenswork
> Annika1980: yeah, i listen to Brooks Jensen's (of Lenswork) podcasts
> every day at work. it keeps me inspired
>
> PhotoDude: I'm pretty set with the audio stuff, I won't be buying
> that stuff for quite some time
> PhotoDude: do you read the magazine, look at the images?
> Annika1980: in some ways, audio technology is like film
> technology .... both of them are stagnant
> PhotoDude: films keep getting better, kodak just updated a bunch of
> film and fuji is doing so as well
> Annika1980: sometimes I look at lenswork. nice stuff, but the color
> seems to be a bit off
> PhotoDude: well it's a B&W magazine
>
> Annika1980: i figured you'd be shooting with a digital back by now.
> get with the program, dude!
> Annika1980: if i shot landscapes i'd use a scanning back
> Annika1980: like stephen johnston
> PhotoDude: scanning backs take too long,like 90 seconds, that can be
> a problem as clouds move, grass blows
> Annika1980: Photoshop, baby!
> Annika1980: multiple exposures!
> PhotoDude: it's the image that matters, all that other stuff screws
> up the process
> Annika1980: i agree with the first half of that
> PhotoDude: well, I've learned a thing or two about photography, but
> do what you do
>
> Annika1980: for the landscape shots that you take, what gear do you
> usually use?
> Annika1980: and which films?
> PhotoDude: sinar for 6x12cm and 4x5, Fuji GX617 for 6x17cm, Fotoman
> 612 for 6x12cm, Fuji Gx60III for 6x8cm, Mamiya 7II for 6x7cm, Rolli
> 6008i for 6x6cm
> PhotoDude: Tmax 100 and techpan,although techpan is discontinued
> Annika1980: someday i'll let you explain to me the need for 6
> cameras.
>
> Annika1980: why not just get the digital back on the Hassy or a Phase
> One back for your cameras?
> Annika1980: i think all that stuff screws up the process
>
> PhotoDude: some cameras I can fly with, some cameras are small and
> are ok to take on vacation, some cameras are bigger and use bigger
> film, I usually take 2 systems on a driving trip
> Annika1980: yeah, wouldn't it be nice if one camera did it all?
> Annika1980: oops, i forgot . the 1DsMKII does!
>
> PhotoDude: a digital camera is not going to give the the kind of
> image quality that I get with film,
> Annika1980: well it's a bit late here (1:00 AM) to begin that
> argument
> PhotoDude: a DSLR is not going to do what a Sinar can do
> Annika1980: do you think a photo like the one you just e-mailed me
> could not be done with a DSLR?
> PhotoDude: I can afford any camera I want, why do you think I shoot
> film and use the cameras that I use?
> Annika1980: because for you it is about the process as much as the
> image
>
> PhotoDude: it would not have the same image quality, also collectors
> pay much more for a silver or platinum print than they do for digital
> Annika1980: so I've heard
> PhotoDude: I don't care about the process, I want the image
> Annika1980: well if the image is all that matters then the top of the
> line digital stuff like the digital backs blows away anything film can
> do. but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one
>
> Annika1980: hey, thanks for takin the time and talkin to me
> Annika1980: and good luck on your career.
> PhotoDude: Bret, I've been doing digital imaging professionally since
> 1991, I can afford any camera I want, for B&W film is the way to go,
> If I shot color I would consider digital
> PhotoDude: anyway, I have to get to sleep, i need to get up at 5am
> tomorrow and go shoot, I'm glad you wrote,keep in touch, good luck to
> you as well
> Annika1980: fair enough. what do you say to people who claim that
> the new digital B/W printing processes are superior to the old?
> ...
>
> read more »

After reading the post, it is quite obvious who is right: neither of
you. You're both zealots who are entreanched in your position and not
willing to listen to the other site.

I can think of a dozen reason why digital is better than film and I
can think of a dozen more why film is better than digital. There is
no right or wrong. There is no "better".

You are tying to make a certain statement and digital works great for
you. He is trying to make a different statement and film works great
for him. So what's the problem. He's doing what he wants, making a
living, and not hurting anyone. What else could you ask for? But
you'll never "convert" him until he sees a reason to switch. He knows
the field and talks to people. He knows why he does things the way he
does. And he'll know when/if it's time to convert.

In the mean time, photography is a big tent.

On Mar 15, 1:36 pm, "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> After reading the post, it is quite obvious who is right: neither of
> you. You're both zealots who are entreanched in your position and not
> willing to listen to the other site.

Yeah, but one of us is a real zealot and the other just plays one on
TV.

Brooks Jensen had some thoughts on one of his podcasts (available on
his site) about film shooters who have an aversion to digital. He
noted that they must not buy photo books since almost any book you can
find is printed with digital processes. Also, he commented that it
isn't a question of IF these guys will be switching to digital but
WHEN. And it may not be by choice.

At least Jensen recognizes the realities of the situation. As editor
of a B/W fine arts magazine (Lenswork) I would expect him to also come
down on the side of film, yet he takes a more realistic view than my
friend.
Whenever you hear someone make a blanket statement like, "Digital
doesn't have the quality of film," then you know you are talking to
someone with very limited experience in modern day digital technology.

I find myself in a great spot, being "Totally Digital Annika" and
all. I can continue to make the argument that digital equals or
surpasses film. I have the luxury of time on my side since digital
technology is improving by leaps and bounds while film technology is
mostly stagnant. So if I'm wrong today, I will surely be right
tomorrow.

Who Rules?

Annika1980 wrote:

> That is why the fine art galleries or a lot like the high-end audio
> salons .... lotsa snake oil.

No, people spend the kind of money they want spend because they can. If it
makes them happy to pay $4,000 for 20' of Andrew Heliax rf coaxial cables
for their speakers so be it. Personally, I find using Mil spec silver and
Teflon coaxial cables for audio work to be best. Of course, it helps that
it is dirt-cheap surplus.







Rita

On 2007-03-15 03:40:32 -0700, "Kinon O'Cann" <> said:

>>> Big Snip...
>
> Pretty funny stuff. Here's a working pro telling you that film beats digital
> for landscape quality, but for some reason it didn't seem to sink in for
> you. I think you need to consider his words carefully...

You're talking to a guy on AOL and admonishing him to listen to pros?!?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor