On 27/11/16 11:24, Andrew wrote:
On 26/11/2016 20:31, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/11/2016 00:13, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and
then
processing it digitally?

Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer
experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff
I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/
reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film.

You can be just as artistic with a digital camera, no, you can be more
artistic with a digital camera as it will do all a film camera will do
and some more.
If you want a challenge take up painting or sketching you pictures 8-)

Most people
won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really
from
the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their
obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you
wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D

Most people don't ride a motorbike, most people are more sensible.

Most people cannot:-

1. Drive an F1 car
2. Become PM (or President)
3. Win any lottery
4. Take really good photos, no matter how expensive the camera.


I can see the point of teaching people to use a manual camera first, in
order to understand the principles, but my relatively modern DSLR can be
operated in fully manual mode, if that's what I want, although the lack
of a split image rangefinder makes accurate focussing quite hard -
especially with ageing eyes.


But all this faff about using film - its a very very flawed medium,
hasn't got the dynamic range, its grainy, and you always have the wrong
film in the camera.

Even the bollox about 'I cant print a black and white picture without it
having a color cast' is utter ********. Use a black and white printer!


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx