Reading mode: Light Dark

Digital is No Less "Organic" Than Film

Go to last post
JulesJ said:
gollywop said:
One thing you've got to know about JulesJ: in many (most) of his posts, he foams at the mouth. And when questioned about it, he changes to frothing at the mouth. He's done it for years and is a master. :-)
Click to expand...
thanks for that appreciation Gollywop. Perhaps I could point out that my posts on this thread have a point and are backed up by my beliefs and experience having been practicing, developing and printing silver, and using digital, both professionally and as an amateur for some fifty years. Whereas your pathetic few words above are based on ignorance and malicious abuse. Who is the d1ckhead here I would ask? If you have something interesting to say please do. Otherwise you are just categorising yourself the same as what you seem to be describing me. Contribute positively or mind your own business?
Click to expand...
As I said.



--
gollywop



D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg
 
bford said:
JulesJ said:
I have been wasting my time trying to communicate with you haven't I.

See

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54219207

Bye

Jules
Click to expand...
Wow, so now all of a sudden I'm a "troll?" That's what you finally bring to this discussion? Insults and personal attacks, and through a third party no less to hide behind.

That post was reported. It's called flaming. It's exactly what you are doing now, but through that other person's words. It's what insecure and mean people resort to that are ultimately intolerant of other people questioning what they have to say and others being able to freely express their views and opinions.

Last post to you. I also reported both instances of you posting that link to me.
Click to expand...
Any one that claims to be a new member (July 4th, 2014) and posts 939 posts in the first 5 weeks (allowing for the week you couldn't post) is liable to be called a troll especially since only 5 of those threads were your own.

That's a posting rate of almost 10,000 posts per annum.

The suspicion that you had a former life here this year also derives from the fact that again you top the posts in the same three Forums, Mac Talk, Open Talk and Retouching and adopt the same repetitious argumentative style without any photographic contributions. However, if you have a place here, Open Talk is the ideal spot if your interlocutors don't mind the arguments. Where is your photographic contribution, I ask?

You are welcome to report this as I wish to draw it to the attention of the Moderators again.
 
david1sv said:
david1sv said:
That said, I have seen even more impressive photography created today than I did back in the film days. Far more. That shouldn't be a surprise considering how much more is possible with digital technology.
Click to expand...
Exactly. But couldn't it be just because in digital era photography is more affordable to millions of people? ;)
Click to expand...
The impressive I was talking about is the result of far better detail, far less noise, far better color, and the ability to easily edit your images.
 
Last edited:
tony brown said:
bford said:
JulesJ said:
I have been wasting my time trying to communicate with you haven't I.

See

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54219207

Bye

Jules
Click to expand...
Wow, so now all of a sudden I'm a "troll?" That's what you finally bring to this discussion? Insults and personal attacks, and through a third party no less to hide behind.

That post was reported. It's called flaming. It's exactly what you are doing now, but through that other person's words. It's what insecure and mean people resort to that are ultimately intolerant of other people questioning what they have to say and others being able to freely express their views and opinions.

Last post to you. I also reported both instances of you posting that link to me.
Click to expand...
Any one that claims to be a new member (July 4th, 2014) and posts 939 posts in the first 5 weeks (allowing for the week you couldn't post) is liable to be called a troll especially since only 5 of those threads were your own.
Click to expand...
Learn the meaning of the word trolling. It's actually what you are doing right now.
tony brown said:
That's a posting rate of almost 10,000 posts per annum.
Click to expand...
There is no post limit that exists in this forum. You just want to shut people up. Calling someone a troll is the most common way of doing that in a forum. That is what this one, and only, post of yours in this thread is for.
tony brown said:
The suspicion that you had a former life here this year also derives from the fact that again you top the posts in the same three Forums, Mac Talk, Open Talk and Retouching
Click to expand...
Bloody hell, are you a stalker too?
tony brown said:
and adopt the same repetitious argumentative style
Click to expand...
No, it's called debating a topic and expressing your views and opinions.That's what happens in forums.
tony brown said:
without any photographic contributions.
Click to expand...
Try actually reading my posts, starting with the first one. For you to say I have not posted "any photographic contributions" is a ridiculous and obvious lie.
tony brown said:
However, if you have a place here, Open Talk is the ideal spot if your interlocutors don't mind the arguments. Where is your photographic contribution, I ask?
Click to expand...
All you have to do is read the thread. You could do that and be honest, but instead your are preferring to launch a personal attack on someone.

Where is your "photographic contribution" to this long thread. This is your first and only post in this long thread, and what does that post contain? It contains trolling, flaming, and off topic nonsense. That's it.
tony brown said:
You are welcome to report this as I wish to draw it to the attention of the Moderators again.
Click to expand...
You are the one obviously violating the rules of this forum. And yes, I did report. Whether it gets resolved fairly, who knows.

Last post to you.
tony brown said:
--
Cheers, Tony.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bford said:
david1sv said:
bford said:
That said, I have seen even more impressive photography created today than I did back in the film days. Far more. That shouldn't be a surprise considering how much more is possible with digital technology.
Click to expand...
Exactly. But couldn't it be just because in digital era photography is more affordable to millions of people? ;)
Click to expand...
The impressive I was talking about is the result of far better detail, far less noise, far better color, and the ability to easily edit your images.
Click to expand...
I think your statement above probes categorically how little you know about great photography. The four factors you mention have very little to do with creating a great photograph? They have very little to do with the content of a picture.

What were you banned from DPR for before you returned bford? I didn't know they banned people for ignorance.
 
why would anyone consider film photography an organic process or in this case more organic than digital. While there are certainly hydro carbons in film chemistry its not close to being a carbon based technology and what hydrocarbons are there are by en large very environmentally unfriendly to the point of being highly toxic and dangerous. The last thing I would want to praise film technology for is being organic.
 
bosjohn21 said:
why would anyone consider film photography an organic process or in this case more organic than digital.While there are certainly hydro carbons in film chemistry its not close to being a carbon based technology and what hydrocarbons are there are by en large very environmentally unfriendly to the point of being highly toxic and dangerous. The last thing I would want to praise film technology for is being organic.
Click to expand...
Read the original post and what I was responding to. There is more than one meaning/usage for the word organic.
bosjohn21 said:
--
John aka bosjohn21
Click to expand...
 
bford said:
bosjohn21 said:
why would anyone consider film photography an organic process or in this case more organic than digital.While there are certainly hydro carbons in film chemistry its not close to being a carbon based technology and what hydrocarbons are there are by en large very environmentally unfriendly to the point of being highly toxic and dangerous. The last thing I would want to praise film technology for is being organic.
Click to expand...
Read the original post and what I was responding to. There is more than one meaning/usage for the word organic.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ellis Vener
Photography is a craft. But like any craft it can produce Art
2
Replies
28
Views
879
bobnn
B
K
Blogging With Film
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
8K
p_anotherguy
P
J
How to? A digital equivalent of a film "contact sheet"
Replies
8
Views
16K
PMB
P
A
How do I make my film photos less "digital"?
Replies
16
Views
53K
alex_virt
A
NiVoak
Digital Progress?
Replies
1
Views
932
a_c_skinner
A

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top