Topic: Ok it's digital but.......

[choppert]

Hello world,

I'm sure some of you may be familiar with this chap http://www.michaelbosanko.com but his images are definitely worth a look.

I know he uses digital cameras BUT he says he does all his squiggles in camera, so he could just as well be using film.  (Does that work in my defence?)

So take the camera out of it, what a clever chap!

Chops

[LT]

interesting stuff chops, and it certainly could be done on film.

just to clarify things regarding digital work, here is a snippet from our "please read this first" section:

This forum is all about using film; film of any size, shape and colour as long as it's....well, film. We've got absolutely nothing against non-film cameras, but this ain't the place to talk about them. Nuff said - hopefully.

it's not that we're a bunch of film-chewing techno-phobes, just that this site was set up to discuss film photography.

hope that's clear

[Ed Wenn]

I know I've been guilty of posting here about digital in the past (sometimes as a joke) and I can also understand the desire to share something that we think is cool with a group of like-minded people, but in the final analysis I do agree with Leon when he says we should do our best to keep this forum for links, discussions, recommendations, tips & work all based around film and related traditional methods of photography.

...and in a very 'Minority Report' turn of events, Leon has pre-emptively struck and prevented me from posting a question here about digital point and shoot cameras. Now that my thinking has been re-focussed I'll take that elsewhere.

[choppert]

Guys,

With respect, that's crap.
I know this is your website and you make up the rules but for two of you to jump on a (potentially) interesting thread and moan about it being not in the spirit of things is a bit rich and a bit of an overreaction.
Leon - didn't you post a gushing review of some DSLR recently?  How is that any more valid a post?  At least this post might get someone experimenting and having some fun (be it film or digital).

Are you saying Diane's Polaroid pinhole image is ok, but if she posted a similar one taken with her digital Holga lens she shouldn't show us that?

What do other FWs think?

But at the end of the day, your ball your rules.....

Chops

[LT]

Leon - didn't you post a gushing review of some DSLR recently?  How is that any more valid a post? 

here is the thread http://filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=2064.0

It was me playing devil's advocate.  I wanted to spark a discussion on the digi v film thing here as it's good to make our position's clear now and then, especially when the world has moved on so far in the 5 or so years since we set up filmwasters.  We got thoughtful and intelligent responses, for which I am really grateful  - it helped me to clarify things in my head, that's for sure.  It didnt involve me showing work by digital cameras.

Are you saying Diane's Polaroid pinhole image is ok, but if she posted a similar one taken with her digital Holga lens she shouldn't show us that?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying,  She would of course be entitled to post it on one or all of the many other non-film specific camera forums, or toycamera forums, or pinhole forums that are available.

It's a kind of floodgate keeping thing.  If we stop the first sign of leakage, we wont let the deluge through.  Sorry if you disagree Chops, but that's our stance.  There are plenty of places on the web where people can discuss work originated from digital cameras, it's just not here. We wont stop the thread, and other members are more than welcome to comment, but we are very unlikely to change our opinion on this as it would completely re-focus the site, something I certainly wouldnt want to happen.

[Ken B: eyes, I just do eyes.]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Chops you have a point and Leon plus Ed have responded quite fairly I think. I think also with respect for you as an artist who contributes to this forum they didn't go all "our ball, our rules" on you. They explained where the line is and why, in a fair and peer orientated way.

However this may sound like I am conspiring to be on their side so this is how I see it:

There are heaps of great digital sites out there, many I have visited, many have brilliant links, but that is for digital development not for film information, try and get some of them to answer a film related question.

I have shot something like 10,000 images since I hit the road last November all of them digital, there are some fantastic images I would like to share with the gang here because so far out of the many forums I have visited this is the one I like in so far as the critiques have real value in them and the group of people behind the comments are a bunch of great guys and gals who are willing to share their interest and knowledge willing and in a peer to peer related fashion.

So I can't tell you how much I want to post some of my excellent images so I can show off a bit, but I can't because they are not film. So I just decided it is up to me to go out and do a bunch of cool shit on film and then post them.

I understand your point but don't agree with it

[Ed Wenn]

NOTE: I'm at work and haven't had time to do more than scan read all of the comments in this thread, but just wanted to pour a bit of oil over troubled waters. If this post has the opposite effect then please take a deep breath and wait for me to write another reply when I get a bit more time.
**********************************************************************

Look, this isn't a big deal and I'm really sorry, Matt/Chops, if we annoyed you because that really wasn't the intention. You contribution here is always valued and I really enjoy your sense of humour and your photography.

Leon and I are just concerned that there might be too much of a digital presence (however tiny) creeping in at FW and while that's hardly a major issue in the grand scheme of things, it's something that we felt we wanted to highlight. Sorry if we did so in a clumsy way.

Also, I'll hold my hand up and admit that I absolutely have been part of the problem with a recent comedy post about statues and a potential post about digi point and shoots which I had primed and ready before Leon quite correctly warned me off.

At FW we try to avoid influenece from commercial interests by not accepting ads, by keeping the site independently funded - mainly by Skorj because my credit card always seems to go missing around renewal time  - and by discouraging people from hawking gear or work on the forum. In the same way we like to keep the digital influence down to an absolute minimum.

[Andrea.]

Have I come to APUG by mistake??

It used to be fun here :-(

[Ed Wenn]

Hmm, I think it still will be, Andrea.  Sorry if we've bummed everyone out today. This is just a blip.

[hookstrapped]

As a recent transgressor    , having posted something about my new Olympus E-P1, I think the idea of trying to keep this site film-focused makes sense.

However, our enthusiasm for film and film cameras (speaking for myself and I think for others, as well) is not strictly technical but also aesthetic and process-oriented.  So when digital technology is used to extend the "film aesthetic" or picture-making processes that are more like that of film cameras than that of a typical DSLR, it's a cause for mention in a community of film enthusiasts.

Could I suggest a sub-forum here where we can share and discuss things digital which we, as film enthusiasts, think would be of interest to other film enthusiasts? 

[choppert]

Sorry if we did so in a clumsy way.

Ed - Apology graciously accepted. 

I was  just trying to share some stunning images that I thought would be viewed for what they were, not what they weren't - I wasn't too concerned about how they were made.

Andrea - it is getting a bit precious and grumpy at the mo.  I'm sure good times are ahead!

Peace and  out (as the digital yoof say),


Chops

[Ed Wenn]

Andrea - it is getting a bit precious and grumpy at the mo.  I'm sure good times are ahead!

So who is Precious and who is Grumpy?
Can I be Grumpy, please?

 

[choppert]

Can I be Grumpy, please?

 

In a recent survey, six out of seven dwarfs said they weren't happy!
Boom boom

[LT]

I am proud to be precious, my precioussss.

this really does have nothing to do with APUG or anywhere else though to be honest, it's about filmwasters (the clue is in the title)   Andrea - pls try to read a little light-hearted smirkyness into the thread.

I wouldnt expect Vinyl Recordings R Us to stock my fave band's most recent CD, no matter how good the choons were.

It's nothing personal to matthew or anyone else really, thems just the rules of Filmwasters.

[Andrea.]

It's ok all. Tis the BEST place to visit for images and nice people . 






Has the w/e started yet??

[hookstrapped]

No feedback on my suggestion and its rationale?

[moominsean]

i personally don't like it when the forums get split up. tc.com has too many diff forums now and i have a hard time paying attention to all of them.

i posted something about the new pen as well awhile back, but i figured it was somewhat relevant since it was based on a vintage film camera.

[hookstrapped]

I could see it either way.  Part of the substantial charm of this place is the smallness, the single forum (I sometimes look over to something other than the main forum, articles I guess, but rarely).

[db]

I could see it either way.  Part of the substantial charm of this place is the smallness, the single forum (I sometimes look over to something other than the main forum, articles I guess, but rarely).

Yup. I  browse the forum, and that's it. I always come back because you're all friends, in that weird internetty kind of way, and someone can always be relied upon for a twisted humorous angle on things.

My own passion is that it should be all about the image- not how it was made, or what it was made with. I love the power of a photographic image to move me or to tell me stories. End of story. The gear 'n gadgets and the rest I could care less about. But I'm happy to accept this site's er, focus, on film and the side effect of keeping it small and personal is a bonus.

And if I want to step outside the film thang, well that's why the good lord gave us personal blogs. I can always post digi over there.

So, keep your guard up Leon :-)

[LT]

thanks Don

hookstrapped - I personally wouldn't want to start issuing "off-topic" sub forums, unless they were pertinent to filmwasting as out current ones are.  Not sure what the other 4 think, but for me it would seem to be not what Filmwasters was supposed to be about.

[choppert]

So.........

Has anyone actually looked at the images in that first, innocent post all those moons ago?  I'm not sure I dare ask! 

In all these posts I don't think one person has suggested throwing the site to the digital wolves, and I'm sure most of us couldn't give a monkey's about dSLRs, Photoshop and all the other jiggery-pokery. 
Would just be nice to have a bit of flexibility once in 300 posts when something good comes along.  That's me done on this topic.

Chops

[vicky slater]

well i've only just joined (first post n all) so i don't know if it's bad manners to jump in as a newcomer, but i joined here because it's film.
and the thing with digital is there's so much of it i can imagine it taking over the film as more and more people saw this as a digi friendly site...


anyway, good morning everyone

[Stu]

Oooh, a passing bandwagon... and to think I haven't said anything yet!

We (or most of us probably) joined because we like film and FILMwasters is about film. We joined happy with that fact and those rules, so we should not be surprised that it is still that way.

It is all about the image but I have other sites I go to for the digital ones. I am always amazed at what you lot can do with film so I LOVE the fact that Filmwasters is here and here for film only.

Plus digital is the day job. Yawn.

[Stu]

How rude of me. Hello Vicky. Welcome. We are not really grumpy!

[tinm@n]

I like the idea of being kept strictly about film BUT I am also very interested in hearing about how Hookstrapped gets on with his PEN and also in hearing about Chops' interesting finds too. 

I know bulky forums with lots of sub-forums are a pain but I'd go for adding an Off-topic type section for all "other" business

[vicky slater]

hi stu!
i haven't thought it was grumpy but maybe my grumpy's worse

and i like the 'all other business' idea, a miscellaneous chat thing, with recommendations  and bits of news that maybe you wouldn't want to start a whole new post for.

[Info Red]

Good Morning,

I've been wasting film since 1974 or so, and that's why I was drawn to this forum.  My fascination with the place is that you all post not only your images but the manner in which they were done - cyanotype, dunking in coffee, printed that morning, types of developer, film, cameras, lenses.  But the overall strength of this site is the image itself, and an approach to critiques of imagery that goes beyond the normal one word "cool", or "wow".  The images presented here are well-considered, well-composed, strong, interesting, and done with a wide variety of films, techniques, and aesthetic sensibilities.  It is always a surprise and a delight to see fresh postings not mucked up with Photoshop filters and gadgets.  I, too, shoot digital now, in an effort to splash around in 21st Century technology, and find it to be as challenging in some ways as film.  But my first love will always be film, and I am hoping that the onslaught of digital frippery doesn't leak in to the Filmwasters site any time soon.

My two cents,

Info Red

[gothamtomato]

You know, this is just like what it's like to live in a dorm: The odd phenomenon when all the women's cycles sync up and everyone is PMS-ing at the same time.

[LT]

... when all the women's cycles sync up and everyone is PMS-ing at the same time.

PMS-ing ... pedal-motion (per) second?  Is it something to do with the dropped saddle cross bar, or the fewer gears on ladies' bicycles? I cant recall synchronised fast-pedaling ever causing too much of an upset when I go on bike-rides with a group of my blokey cyclist friends?  Does the same happen with multi-gender bicycle riding?

(apologies for the severely frivolous and dismissive nature of this post - no, really)

[rdbkorn]

This site's strength is it's tight focus on film and straightforward design. I hang out here rather than apug and toycamera for those reasons. What I like about filmwasters is:

- it's all about the images we're creating
- people are respectful in their disagreements, they are respectful in their critiques
- not many threads on one film vs another, what developer, how long etc (those that arise on occasion are for good reason)
- no endless "digital vs film" threads
- no endless "Nikon vs Canon" threads
- no endless "it's a toy camera/it's not a toy camera" threads
- no endless "Lomography is evil/Lomography is the saviour" threads
- lots of good natured humour

Thanks to those that organize this place - it's small and perfectly formed!

[Info Red]

I agree completely!

IR

[LT]

thanks all.  Very kind of you to say.  That is exactly the kind of feel we wanted to create here.

[cpierce]

Agree.  Don't change the rules!  It is what it is and I think that it's GREAT!

Thanks Filmwaster Founders.

[CamerAsian]

Keep it Film Only.

[russmorris]

When I think film, I think filmwasters.

[moominsean]

fyi...

http://www.dpreview.com/

[Karl]

film...creativity...mutual support...

Archive the thread somewhere and get on with admiring Kelli's amazing gallery pic on the homepage!

[Ken B: eyes, I just do eyes.]

When I think film, I think filmwasters.

and when thinking filmwasters I think ...................... oh look shiny thing.....................

[Ed Wenn]

OK, enough on this one already. I've locked it and it'll slowly fall off the face of the world.

"Goodbye, cruel world."