Are digital vs. 35mm film camparisons too off topic?
Related Topics
jrh ...@mac.com (JR)
Just curious as to what the majority of the people here think. Is it too off topic? Should we be talking only PURELY about 35mm film? I personally would like to know what the world of digital is doing, but I guess it would be easy for me to put my digital questions up at rec.photo.digital instead of here. My only reservation is that I would get answers from the digital side instead of how it relates to me, a 35mm user. If we say that comparisons are ok if they relate to 35mm equipment then we get these long threads which always turn into film vs. digital which I am sick of. What do you think? Should there be any rules that keep the posts on topic?
JR
"Steven Baker" sbake...@midsouth.rr.com
If you scan a 35mm photograph, it's ok to talk about it in this forum. If, however, you take photos with (Oh my Gosh!) a digital camera, keep such trivial nonsense out of here and in rec.photo.digital.
Just kidding!
Steve ...
dNaOvSiPdA ...@writeme.com
Well, I can hardly speak for the majority. It is my opinion, however, that the more appropriate place is rec.photo.digital. Like most 'comparisons' whether they be film vs. digital, Nikon vs. Canon, Auto cameras vs. manual, you will rarely get much useful information no matter where you put them, they are simply too emotionally charged issues and usually generate more heat than light. Different computer types (Apple, PC, etc.) usually have to create .advocacy groups just to get this kind of discussion out of the group for people who were interested in using the equipment they own rather than have the group fill up with flaming discussions of alternatives. I think the same principal applies to this group and there are all ready plenty of flaming topics that relate only to 35mm equipment without bringing digital into the mix. The people who are interested in such a comparison are likely to be reading rec.photo.digital anyway so I can't imagine that you will get responses that are significantly different without annoying a population of people that have no interest in digital cameras.
Dave
pafra ...@aol.com (Pafralio)
Comparisons? If you shouldn't compare here or there, where should you compare?
rec.photo.compare35/digital?
We could debate the topic, but anyone who has a real problem with such postings, has a problem. And it isn't the postings.
Chris Maddock chris.madd...@btinternet.co.uk
You are quite right. If we were to declare such posting OT here, because they involve digital, it would also be right to declare them OT in rec.photo.digital, because they involve film!
I think this is one area where there is, and always will be, an overlap between the two genres and the two newsgroups.
--
?©???©?¬ ~ Chris to email me, bear in mind that btinternet is a .com, not a .co.uk!
vtVinc ...@HATprodigy.Net (VT)
I don't think this is off-topic at all -- if it is a comparison of 35mm film and digital - since the topic crosses over the boundaries -
Personally I think it is very relevant if we want to see how photography is progressing on all fronts.
I do not disagree that the old film vs. digital can be wearing - but that can't be avoided, nor is it necessarily off-topic - since it is all personal preference/choice - and what may be important to one person, may not be to another.
Popular Photography did quite a good article on the topic in their May/2001 issue - the now infamous Film vs. Digital cover issue -
fortunately that article is now on the web -
Film vs. Digital By Michael J. McNamara http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=11
--
Vincent Remove HAT when replying http://communities.msn.com/UnknownVincent/vtportfolio.msnw
ernr ...@aol.comjunktrap (ERNReed)
and Vincent posted: I quite agree with Vincent and others -- 35mm vs. digital must be on-topic in the 35mm group as well as the digital group. However, the endless arguments about CDs vs. vinyl which keep breaking out in film vs. digital threads are definitely off-topic.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"They call me Mrs Reed" http://members.aol.com/ernreed If you aren't spamming, avoid the junktrap
l ...@aol.comxnox (LauraK)
Personally, I think a lot of photographers just like to argue.
Go back about 30 years in Pop photo and other camera mags and read the debate on aperture-preferred vs. shutter-preferred cameras, back when those options were first introcuced.
Those were almost as good as the indignation at Nikon putting a match-needle meter in its camera.
webmas...@atomicmotorspeedway.com http://www.atomicmotorspeedway.com
"Mark Morgan" mmorg...@san.rr.com
This same question has come up many many times before, in different forms.
In my view, the lines between digital equipment and film equipment are becoming rightfully blurred.
Here's an example of why: I have nine or ten 35mm lenses that I've used for years with my Canon film bodies.
I now have added a Canon digital body that uses those very lenses.
So... Should those lenses no longer be discussed as 35mm gear? Are they now "digital gear?
Answer: They are now officially both.
A large portion of the rec.photo.digital crowd have zero experience with interchangeable lenses such as mine, and it is not all too helpful to post about them there.
If I am using these "35mm equipment items" (lenses) on my digital body, do they somehow magically become a different cl*** of equipment?? Of course they don't. They remain what they always were.
I think the lines will become increasingly blurry, and that this is not a problem.
After all... Most of us would agree that the key element is the gl***...how it is manipulated...and how best to collect and record the light they project into our camera bodies.
It is 35mm equipment. It belongs here. It also belongs in other groups.
Confusing, ain't it? But so what.
-mm ...
David Albrecht dNaOvSiPdA...@writeme.com
True, but on the other hand, like most newer technologies that are intended to compete with an existing one, many of the discussions in a newsgroup dedicated to the new technology will center around comparisons with the technologies that came before because the older technology is the yardstick the newer technology will be judged by.
Ergo, a major topic of discussion rec.photo.digital group always has been and until it truly becomes a non-issue, always will be, "how does it compare to a 35mm". Therefore, I still consider it more appropriate to post to a group dedicated to the newer technology rather than the older.
Dave
pafra ...@aol.com (Pafralio)
Well, there are people in the older technology who are wondering whether they should go to the newer. As such, if anything, comparisons should be in the older discussion group. But why should we be so legalistic and formulaic about this?
NickC n-c...@mediaone.net
If such comparative digital information is wanted then for sure those that want it should go where the information is a function of everyday discussions. There are no rules against one discussing subjects in two different ng's, just don't cross post.
Because there are two ng's. One composed of those who cater to digital and one for those who want to discuss 35mm film.
Nick
| To Top |