What with the negatif "if..." threads?

sevo said:
Yes. But Kodak was of rather different relevance this and that side of the Atlantic, up to the seventies they were only present in those select parts of Europe where they had purchased a local company, and they never got past a "one of three or four major makers" status here. Many Europeans don't quite get how much it must hurt the USAians when the key company they'd identify with photography goes away ...
Click to expand...

Eastman Kodak's influence on photography was global, even if they didn't sell much film in your neighborhood. EK had so many of the foundation patents, invented so much of what everyone else produced, their passing is a big thing indeed to all photography.
 
The older I get the less important the "what ifs" get as far as being overly worried about them is concerned. You have no choice but to deal with it when it happens but not before.

Bob
 
seeing as you are almost quoting my thread...

i don't see myself as negative but i do think about stuff at times...like what if kinds of stuff...

i'll keep it to myself if you like.
joe
Click to expand...

No need for that. Sorry if it came over as personal that wasn't the intention. Probably because I wrote if after reading your post.

It's just that the forum has been full of similar threads lately. It gives the impression that just one day...boom...there are no camera's anymore, no film anymore, nothing anymore left to photograph.

But if you look at it, there are hundreds of film/camera companies that went out. Lots that took their place or grow because of it. Then there is nothing keeping anyone from making his own camera and/or film. If they can revive Polaroid then simple b&w is a walk in the park. And a field camera isn't rocket science either. Keeping mechanical camera's working should be easy, certainly now that cnc machining and 3D printing is coming into the grasp of more and more people. A pinhole should be in anyones reach.

If you think about it then mechanical camera's and film actually stand more chance of surviving than digital.
 
There's been some agro in a few threads recently but I don't see the level of negativity being any more than usual. There's been a lot of people questioning some of Leica's moves of late and with good reason IMO ... exhuberant skepticism shouldn't be confused with negativity!

Everyone has the right to express an opinion here ... right or wrong! As long as it doesn't get personal I have few problems with threads that get a little heated!
 
Keith said:
There's been a lot of people questioning some of Leica's moves of late and with good reason IMO ... exhuberant skepticism shouldn't be confused with negativity!

Everyone has the right to express an opinion here ... right or wrong! As long as it doesn't get personal I have few problems with threads that get a little heated!
Click to expand...

Well put.
Still one the most civilised and informative places to hang out.
"Exhuberant skepticism" ...I like that .
 
There is a lot of negativity in photography forums because there is a lot of negativity in photography circles.

The field of photography as a profession has narrowed down to weddings. The amount of photos produced every minute makes it very hard to standout and produce unique work - and even if you do and its recognized, next day it will be imitated by millions and hence lost in the midst of its copies.

Photography as a means of socially engaged work has been replaced by video, because pictures of poor people in some place is not enough, its better to interview the poor people and hear what they have to say along with their images, and video is better because no gimmicky framing and so on is required, reality is presented as it is.

There is no need of brave war photographers and so on, because the person on the scene with the phone camera breaks the news. Secondly, in most hotpots they don't even care about foreign press because the days of getting attention through media is over. Today if you want attention for your cause, you make a video and upload it on youtube... And then there is the apathy of general public who really don't care anymore because the only news is bad news.


Its hard to be positive about photography knowing that its future itself as an art form or medium of self-expression is a question mark.
 
Just like when back in the day, painting as an art form and medium of self expression totally died with the introduction of the then new technology of photography?
 
... what with that and all those cave-painters thrown out of work too you would expect a bit of negativity surely
 
Not everyone can draw/paint. Everyone can click a button.

In fact I was once in a place where many photographers were taking pictures of cherry blossoms and only person was sitting there painting it. Then everyone started photographing the painter as well, which pretty much sums up the absurdity of today's photography.
 
fstops said:
Not everyone can draw/paint. Everyone can click a button.

In fact I was once in a place where many photographers were taking pictures of cherry blossoms and only person was sitting there painting it. Then everyone started photographing the painter as well, which pretty much sums up the absurdity of today's photography.
Click to expand...

... well, that's clearly not true. Everyone can paint, draw and photograph, it's just not everyone can do them well
 
back alley said:
seeing as you are almost quoting my thread...

i don't see myself as negative but i do think about stuff at times...like what if kinds of stuff...

i'll keep it to myself if you like.
joe
Click to expand...

No, don't keep it to yourself. I find the criticism of the question more negative than the question itself. Those of us who have used film for 40 or 50 years and see the (remote I think) possibility of its coming to its historical end quite naturally have questions about that. When the youngsters have most of a life behind them they'll understand; in the meantime it's pretty useless to try to explain.

I am not negative at all about the possibility of film's demise, and for two reasons: It may die as a major commercial player, but it will nonetheless continue, with fewer and fewer options requiring more and more craft, though probably more money too. There are still people making platinum palladium prints, enough that there are kits to buy to experiment with the process. There are recipes available for albumen prints. So I suspect that one way or another, silver will be with us for a while.

The second reason is that the new technologies are good. I shoot a lot of digital, even, recently digital black and white.

But the other thing about the naked ape is that his life ends tragically, with everything he knows and loves dying; I say nothing about his own death, which is almost incidental when the world he has know has perished.

So... what if humans lived forever....?? Would we care more or less about the passing of the things we know? (By the way, I like silver because I'm a good darkroom technician and it's not a skill I am willing to leave unused. I spent a lot of years learning it.)
 
Sparrow said:
... what with that and all those cave-painters thrown out of work too you would expect a bit of negativity surely
Click to expand...

The archeaologists recently showed us how upset the cave painters were -- they stopped producing masterpieces and concentrated on the production of simple red dots. :D
 
fstops said:
Then everyone started photographing the painter as well, which pretty much sums up the absurdity of today's photography.
Click to expand...

You need to drop photography for awhile. It's causing you too much stress. It isn't worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top