Humourous take: Digital vs film

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Siddhartha Jain, Dec 11, 2004.

  1. 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
    Siddhartha Jain, Dec 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Siddhartha Jain

    Julian Tan Guest

    Heresy! For this you will die infidel! :D

    Lol... great quip, keep up the good work.
    Jules
    --
    Shuttertalk
    http://www.shuttertalk.com
    Julian Tan, Dec 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Jon Pike Guest

    Jon Pike, Dec 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Mike F Guest

    Very good (and very true too !!)

    mikey

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    >
    Mike F, Dec 11, 2004
    #4
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    Mr Jessop Guest

    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.
    Mr Jessop, Dec 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Siddhartha Jain

    Frank ess Guest

    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
    Frank ess, Dec 11, 2004
    #6
  7. 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://MacCreator.com
    Eolake Stobblehouse, Dec 11, 2004
    #7
  8. Siddhartha Jain

    Pete D Guest

    "Eolake Stobblehouse" <> wrote in message
    news:111220041819000537%...
    >
    > 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://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.
    Pete D, Dec 11, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <MDHud.68907$>, Pete D
    <> wrote:

    > "Eolake Stobblehouse" <> wrote in message
    > news:111220041819000537%...
    > >
    > > 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://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
    --

    http://MacCreator.com
    Eolake Stobblehouse, Dec 11, 2004
    #9
  10. Siddhartha Jain

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    <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
    Ken Weitzel, Dec 11, 2004
    #10
  11. 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.

    Nonsense, the film zealots are emulsifying in silver halide at the
    gates of rec.photo.digital.

    In other news, UN investigators have unearthed mass graves of 2MP
    digicams!!!

    ;-)
    Siddhartha Jain, Dec 11, 2004
    #11
  12. Siddhartha Jain

    W L Leven Guest

    Ken Weitzel wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > <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
    >

    You guys abd gals are very funny,

    Bill
    W L Leven, Dec 11, 2004
    #12
  13. Pete D wrote:
    >
    > 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.
    >

    Sounds like a serious statement!

    It'd be nice if each and every did that, but some find it necessary to
    lecture or put down others using whatever medium they themselves are not
    comfortable with.....

    Over and out.

    10-4, good buddy.

    --

    John McWilliams

    oh, yes, Digital is now, film is forever!! Or, film at 11:00.
    John McWilliams, Dec 11, 2004
    #13
  14. Siddhartha Jain

    Mike F Guest

    That's not funny!! -- I'm in Washington state and we are on our
    third?? "recount" trying to decide who our next governor will be
    (and the whole state budget will be used up on these blasted
    recounts).

    mikey

    "Ken Weitzel" <> wrote in message
    news:BaIud.461486$Pl.299888@pd7tw1no...
    >
    >
    >
    > <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
    >
    Mike F, Dec 11, 2004
    #14
  15. Siddhartha Jain

    Alan Browne Guest

    Mike F wrote:

    > That's not funny!! -- I'm in Washington state and we are on our
    > third?? "recount" trying to decide who our next governor will be
    > (and the whole state budget will be used up on these blasted
    > recounts).


    Yeah, much better that the elections just be rigged with a wide uncontestable
    margin and avoid the cost of democracy.
    Alan Browne, Dec 11, 2004
    #15
  16. In article <qzKud.555793$D%.549423@attbi_s51>, Mike F
    <> wrote:

    > That's not funny!! -- I'm in Washington state and we are on our
    > third?? "recount" trying to decide who our next governor will be
    > (and the whole state budget will be used up on these blasted
    > recounts).


    The Democratic Party is putting up the bucks for this recount. (I'm in
    Aberdeen)
    Randall Ainsworth, Dec 11, 2004
    #16
  17. Siddhartha Jain

    dj_nme Guest

    Pete D wrote:
    <snip>
    >
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >


    Heretic!
    The peoples digital revolution with not be defeated.
    Film is dead!
    Viva digital siempre!
    dj_nme, Dec 12, 2004
    #17
  18. Siddhartha Jain

    Crownfield Guest

    Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:
    >
    > 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.


    you are limited by your imagination.
    he was not.

    >
    > --
    > - Eolake
    > --
    >
    > http://MacCreator.com
    Crownfield, Dec 12, 2004
    #18
  19. In article <>, Crownfield <>
    wrote:

    > Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:


    > > 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.

    >
    > you are limited by your imagination.



    Yes, evidently. I always fail to imagine people taking my spoofs
    seriously. Must I lay it on even thicker?

    --
    - Eolake
    --

    http://MacCreator.com
    Eolake Stobblehouse, Dec 12, 2004
    #19
  20. Siddhartha Jain

    Jon Pike Guest

    Crownfield <> wrote in news::

    > Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:
    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > you are limited by your imagination.
    > he was not.


    You know what kind of camera adams used?
    "The heaviest one I could carry."
    Someone who shot 8x10, and kept his negatives in a fireproof safe wouldn't
    be switching over to digital any time soon.

    --
    http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
    Jon Pike, Dec 12, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ellis_jay

    Take a slow ride....take it eeee-zy

    ellis_jay, Aug 25, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    689
    ellis_jay
    Aug 25, 2005
  2. Soapy

    Re: Doesn't Take Much To Take Over A Group

    Soapy, Aug 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    59
    Views:
    1,193
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=
    Sep 13, 2004
  3. =?Utf-8?B?SmltIEhvbGxvd2F5?=

    Do I have to take 292 & 296 can I take the 4 cores instead?

    =?Utf-8?B?SmltIEhvbGxvd2F5?=, Jun 1, 2007, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    701
    John R
    Jun 2, 2007
  4. GraB

    What a mistaka to maka (humourous)

    GraB, Dec 22, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,935
    steve
    Dec 22, 2005
  5. Replies:
    18
    Views:
    767
Loading...

Share This Page