Thread: Film scanners?
View Single Post
  #129  
Old April 21st 17, 03:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-21 14:13:49 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Since when do we need a "reason" to pursue a hobby from which we
derive pleasure? Since when is someone else's way of pursuing a hobby
not legitimate?

Not one person is arguing that film is not a legitimate pursuit. It's
the claims of the superiority of film output that we are arguing
about.

Who made that claim? I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied
that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed.


it was claimed.

This is what nospam does to a thread to create an argument where there
should not be an argument. The thread started on the subject of
scanners. Then, Russell D. posted: "Exactly what I was thinking when
I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started
shooting film again. Glad I didn't sell it."

No claim that film is superior. No claim that he can do something
with film that can't be done with digital. Just a simple statement
that he started shooting film again.


in another post, he claimed film can do things digital cannot. that is
a completely bogus claim.

once again, you are twisting things.

nospam had to jump in and say: "bored with digital? there's so much
more it can do versus film." and Russell replied "Why do I need it to
do more?".

nospam, delighted to be able to start yet another argument while
putting-down someone else's preference and insult their ability wrote:
"why limit yourself? if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it."

In other words, nospam feels that anyone shooting film is only capable
of mediocre output.


*film* is only capable of mediocre output.


Define mediocre in terms of photographic output.

I have seen some pretty mediocre output from digital and film cameras
alike. I have also seen great great images captured on film and digital
cameras. The medium used to capture photographic images is not what
determines the excellence of any photographic image, it is the
intangibles of scene/subject selection, composition and most
importantly, the intent and capability of the photographer. There are
thousands, ...er, millions of digital photographers who have captured
100's of millions of images of nothing but mediocre output. However,
digital has provided a platform for many photographers with the
experience, talent and ability to learn for the production of great
images, and the same can be said for many of those with the same
dedication to film.

it has nothing to do with the person using it.

anyone choosing film, for whatever reason, has limited themselves.
simple fact.

It's typical of nospam to do this. He creates dissension where there
is no dissension.


it's actually *you* who does that, going so far to fabricate things so
you can argue.

It's not a film shooter that has claimed superiority. It's the person
who says that film shooters can only produce mediocre results that is
claiming superiority.


wrong.



--
Regards,

Savageduck