What was wrong with film?

George writes:

And a lack of surprises is nice, too. My daughter went to Arizona last
summer and took a new (35mm film) camera with her...turns out it had a
"feature" that neither of us was aware of and she wound up taking two rolls
of film in "panoramic mode" (where "panoramic" doesn't mean a wider than
normal negative, it only means the top and bottom are masked out)...

Many digital cameras are much worse. You think you have the photos,
then you don't, or you erase them by accident, etc. You can't erase
exposures on film (unless you fail to rewind it), but it's easy on a
digicam.

Overall, these are problems with the design of the camera, however, and
have nothing to do with the type of capture used.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Reciprocity Failure writes:

What a stupid statement.

An increasing number of digicam owners are computer-illiterate, as the
use of digicams expands beyond the geek community.

It conveys much more information about you than it
does about owners of digital cameras (and what it says about you isn't
flattering).

At least it contains no personal attack.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

jjs writes:

Well, the poor young dweeb started her pitch with "After each
shot you can look at the back of the camera to see if
it came out!" His response? Well, I swear that churchbells were going to
rock a thousand miles away. From his laughter. Gales of laughter!

I don't blame him. I've always wondered about that. I already _know_
if my (film) pictures are going to come out, since I looked through the
viewfinder when I took them. I don't need a screen to verify it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article ,
"jjs" wrote:

One of my former colleagues has been a professional photojournalist for
over forty years. He even has a Pulitzer, or three if you count shared
prizes. His paper went all digital not long ago. Now imagine being the poor
young technophile who tried to convince this hugely talented, experience
curmudgeon that film is a Bad Thing. Well, the poor young dweeb started her
pitch with "After each shot you can look at the back of the camera to see if
it came out!" His response? Well, I swear that churchbells were going to
rock a thousand miles away. From his laughter. Gales of laughter!

There was a piece done by ABC news on this very subject, one of the editors
of TIME/Life I beleive was going into great details regarding the "delete the bad ones"
mentality. Her point was that had that been a factor in The Monica Lewinski
hugging Bill scenario the image would have been lost forever. It was not a Pulitizer
at the time it was taken, luckly it was on film and Darrel Halstead's contact sheet
(I think that was the photographers name).

So what exactly do we end up with, basically a sterile "perfected"
world or images, or a perfectly sterile world.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

Gregory W Blank wrote:

So what exactly do we end up with, basically a sterile "perfected"
world or images, or a perfectly sterile world.

Odds are we end up with nothing at all. First we edit out all the ones
that are boring when taken. Then later we edit out some more. We keep
repeating the editing until nothing is left. Imagine giving a box of prints
to a series of people. Telling each one to take out the worthless ones and
to then pass it on. Bet by the end that box is pretty close to empty.

Nick

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Many digital cameras are much worse. You think you have the photos,
then you don't, or you erase them by accident, etc. You can't erase
exposures on film (unless you fail to rewind it), but it's easy on a
digicam.

I'm sure some people would be happy if they _could_ erase their digital
media, but sometimes the data is kept and the directory pointers are zeroed.
OT, for sure, but I know a fellow who delighted in loaning out floppies for
his classmates to use in the class Mavica. It's astounding how people behave
alone with a Digicam.

"Gregory W Blank" wrote in message
...

There was a piece done by ABC news on this very subject, one of the
editors
of TIME/Life I beleive was going into great details regarding the "delete
the bad ones"
mentality. Her point was that had that been a factor in The Monica
Lewinski
hugging Bill scenario the image would have been lost forever. It was not a
Pulitizer
at the time it was taken, luckly it was on film and Darrel Halstead's
contact sheet
(I think that was the photographers name).

And how ironic it is that Americans love to sift through the trash called
Star Search (or whatever the fcuk it's called). Reminds me of the
photoeditor's hell - relegated to reviewing streetside surveliance camera
output - in real time.

"jjs" wrote in message
...

"Gregory W Blank" wrote in message
...

There was a piece done by ABC news on this very subject, one of the
editors
of TIME/Life I beleive was going into great details regarding the
"delete
the bad ones"
mentality. Her point was that had that been a factor in The Monica
Lewinski
hugging Bill scenario the image would have been lost forever. It was not
a
Pulitizer
at the time it was taken, luckly it was on film and Darrel Halstead's
contact sheet
(I think that was the photographers name).

Yep. I just saw the last part of AMERICAN PHOTOGRAPHY [if my memory of the
series is right]. It wrestled with digital vs film in light of the Monica
Lewinski discovery.

And how ironic it is that Americans love to sift through the trash called
Star Search (or whatever the fcuk it's called). Reminds me of the
photoeditor's hell - relegated to reviewing streetside surveliance camera
output - in real time.

Reality CCTV, no less.

"Roy Mock" wrote in message
u...

Yep. I just saw the last part of AMERICAN PHOTOGRAPHY [if my memory of
the
series is right]. It wrestled with digital vs film in light of the Monica
Lewinski discovery.

And what of the Kerry - Fonda picture? It was a total fake, but the
desperado news people sucked on it. If they don't take a moment to check
facts now, what of the future when they go back to an obscure event, unknown
photographer's images?

If it ain't on film, it ain't .... what?

Sorry, I didn't mean it as a personal attack, I meant the statement was
stupid not the person. It was a stupid statement because neither the author
nor anyone else here has any actual knowledge of the extent to which digital
camera users know anything about computers. Certainly 99% of the digital
camera users aren't "computer illiterate" and digital camera use hasn't been
confined to "the geek community" for many years if it ever was.

However, it's amusing to see the straws at which some are grasping in their
efforts to convince themselves that everyone who uses a digital camera is an
idiot. The "Pulitzer Prize Winning Photo Journalist Meets Technie Dweeb"
was the best. Most, probably all, major metropolitan newspapers as well as
many smaller ones no longer use film. But they haven't switched to digital
technology because it enables the photographer to see the photograph at the
time it's being made. Indeed it's difficult to imagine a "techie dweeb"
seriously trying to convince a Pulitzer prize-winning photo journalist of
digital's merits on that basis. Newspapers have switched to digital because
it makes a lot of sense for them. It eliminates the need to physically
transport film or a print back to the photo editor and then to the plant, it
eliminates the need to maintain a darkroom and a darkroom staff to process
film, it allows the photographs to arrive at the photo editor's desk much
faster, sometimes allowing the photo editor to let the photographer know on
the spot whether he or she has what the editor wants, and the cost savings
involved in not having to buy and process thousands of rolls of film per
year are enormous.

It's obviously painful for some to acknowledge but digital actually makes a
lot of sense for many people and many industries, everyone who uses it isn't
a computer illiterate or someone who can't read a manual. Not everyone who
used film was exactly a genius either. APS exists in part because industry
research showed that so many people had trouble getting a film leader onto a
take up spool.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Reciprocity Failure writes:

What a stupid statement.

An increasing number of digicam owners are computer-illiterate, as the
use of digicams expands beyond the geek community.

It conveys much more information about you than it
does about owners of digital cameras (and what it says about you isn't
flattering).

At least it contains no personal attack.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.