STILL going, eh? A good night's rest didn't set you straight? Ok then, I'll bite (if only to keep your idiocy going a bit longer...this is getting really fun now).
It's not your only only one; your posts are rife with misinformation. You should be embarrassed about most of what you've written here. As for my opinion on college...well, it's just my opinion. I'm entitled to it, though I realize most disagree. (However, if you think it's not true simply because most disagree with it...you might be falling back on a certain fallacy.)
Well let's have it out then. You tell me exactly what I said that was incorrect; tell me, oh master, precisely where I have erred. I'm man enough to own up to the things I get wrong (like the spot meter issue on the ST-801...which, to be honest, I should have known better about, since that info is
easily accessible).
So let's go; tell me where I've erred. I can sure as hell do that for you.
Just to make it easy on you, here's the substantive content I contributed to this thread:
"
Do you REALLY believe that argument? Do you use a Mac? Do 99% of computer users use Macs?
Now, I agree with you; full frame digital is better than 135 film, if only because of its low price and convenience vs. film. There's no longer any good reason, other than nostalgia, to shoot 135 film; IMHO, this has been the case since at least the release of the Canon 1DsII and its 16MP FF sensor.
Medium format film and larger is a completely different ballgame. A 60MP H4D MF camera will run you $40,000. OR, you could pick up a 503CW for $2300 (or a used Hassy for even less). How much MF film could you shoot for the difference?
When people say "film", then typically mean 135 film. There's a whole other world of film, though."
"
Yes, slide film is beautiful when done right.
However, given the fact that I can approximate the look of good slide film to a very high degree (not trying to say digital + PS = film, per se) AND given the relative costs of FF digital vs. slide film over time, to me the balance has now swung definitively to the digital side.
Again, not to say that film is useless, and there certainly is an "organic" feel you can get from film that is difficult to get from many digital cameras. But the differences are now very, very small, and probably not worth the cost for most people.
This doesn't apply to MF and larger, of course."
"
I understand, and obviously if you like the look of film, then keep using it. We're all trying to replicate that look anyway, so why not shoot with the real thing, right?
My point is merely that the decision to shoot 35mm film vs. digital is no longer one made by virtue of digital's inability to take acceptable photographs (or even to very closely approximate the look of film). If it's a stylistic choice, then so be it. But the old arguments against digital just don't apply anymore.
I used to be a sound recordist, and the same argument was being had a few years ago with digital/Pro Tools vs. analog tape. In the mid-to-late '90s, there was no doubt that digital audio recording just couldn't deliver the warmth and intimacy of 2" analog tape; the A/D converters just weren't up to it. Sure, tape cost a lot more and was WAY less convenient, but it was also straight up better quality. The same thing can no longer be said; modern Pro Tools HD systems and high quality plugins sound every bit as good as tape; not identical, mind you, but of equivalent quality. Add to that the ease of editing and mixing digitally, and you have a system that is in every way preferable to analog, with an exception for those people, like yourself, who want the specific subjective qualities that analog tape (or film) impart.
My point is merely that digital cameras (or Pro Tools rigs) are now capable of making final products that are of the same quality as film (or tape), and that the significant trade-offs of 35mm film no longer justify its use for most people."
"
I completely agree with you, though one could, I suppose, look at it from the other side; if you can make consistently good exposures with slide film on a manual focus SLR, a DSLR will be a piece of cake to master."
"
Lets say I gave you a Canon 1V SLR for free, and I go out and buy a new Canon 5DmkII for $2500. We both use identical EOS lenses, and shoot 1000 frames per month, for one year (12,000 exposures total) me on my 5DII, you with Ilford Delta 100, which runs $5.31 per 36 exp roll at B&H, and $16 per roll to process at same. Actually, $16 seems a bit stiff, so let's call it $10 per roll to develop.
We assume that I already have a computer, but that I have to pay $280 for Lightroom. The lenses are a wash, because we both need those (and they're identical).
I have spent the following:
$2500 - 5DmkII
$280 - Lightroom
TOTAL = $2780 for 12,000 exposures.
You have spent:
$1770 - film ($5.31/36*12,000)
$3333 - developing
TOTAL = $5103 for 12,000 exposures.
So even with a free pro-grade camera, you still spent nearly twice what I did in the first year of ownership. And guess what? My next year of ownership (and all subsequent years) are free. You will continue to pay $5103 every year. Even if you learned to process the film at home, there would be the cost of the equipment (enlarger, chemicals, paper, etc).
Film is great and all, but the low price of SLRs does not compensate for the huge cost of film and especially of processing."
"
I'm not defending film; I shoot 100% digital, and I'm never going back.
But just saying "digital > film" without qualifying what we mean is misleading."
"
I would not recommend a film SLR for a new photographer; I would recommend an entry-level DSLR coupled to a fast prime. The reasons for this are two fold; first, it is expensive and inefficient to learn on film; second, unless you have a specific preference for the esthetic quality of specific types of film, modern digital SLRs produce output that is every bit as good as film. Learn on a prime so that you learn to see compositions and don't allow the lens do the work for you."
I've admitted my error re: the ST-801. So you fill me in on what else here is factually incorrect, genius.
I can only put up with so much stupid.
I know the feeling. Only I'm not the one who told the world that he would shut up, and then failed to follow through.
What "Edge100" doesn't understand is that appealing to people's opinions is not enough to make a statement an ad populum fallacy; it's only a fallacy if the logic itself doesn't hold up. So you can't claim "this toothpaste is better because 9 of 10 dentists prefer it" (although plenty of ads do that all the time and no one, except maybe you, cares). However, if you know they recommend it because they think it's better for fighting gum disease, you can claim "because 9 out of 10 dentists recommend this toothpaste, those 9 out of 10 dentists think it's better for fighting gum disease--and thus chances are if you asked a dentist in that pool what's best for fighting gum disease, they'd say that toothpaste." That's the train of logic I employed. All I wrote was "as with most hobbies, whatever you prefer is better--and because most people prefer digital, chances are you will too, so digital will probably be better for you." This is NOT A LOGICAL FALLACY even though it appeals to public opinion. It may not be the most nuanced advice, which is why I elaborated on it later, but then again I'm entitled to my opinion...
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
You're not entitled to your own facts, however.
What you wrote was this:
"But really, digital is better 99% of the time. What do you see 99% of people using?"
The meaning is clear; you will like digital better because 99% of the people use digital. The number of people using digital is absolutely and completely irrelevant to the question of whether someone will prefer. It is an appeal to popularity, akin to the Mac vs. PC question. "90% of computer users use Windows. Ergo, Windows will be better for you." It's meaningless nonsense.
It's also completely INSANE to call someone out on a logical fallacy (that, no matter how you misread my first post, only exists by implication) on a public forum designed for people to share opinions. As I said, this isn't anlayticalphilosphyrumors.com. You're missing the point on a lot of levels, both intellectual, and uh...emotional.
You're the one who made the fallacious argument, not me. If you had written: "You'll prefer digital because my car is black", that would have been as persuasive an argument as the one you made here. And I called you out on it. And then, for some reason, you decided to keep going on and on and on about it, as though your life depended on it. You were wrong; that particular piece of advice was poorly thought out and meaningless. It's ok; life goes on. You'll be right one day.
But let me guess, "Edge100" just learned about fallacies in a "not worthless" college class? Congrats, I hope you got an A. It certainly hasn't translated over to the real world; you look like a moron who's completely uninformed about logic, photography, and basic human interaction.
Ahhh, anti-intellectualism; the final frontier of the truly stupid. You go and bask in the warming glow of your utter ignorance; the rest of us will get on with things over here in reality land.
And incidentally, not one iota of what I have said has anything at all to do with my photography; I could be the ghost of Ansel freakin' Adams for all you know. But thanks for showing us all what a class act you are.
Now, are you finished yet? I'm perfectly happy to keep responding to you in precisely the same way over and over and over, but you don't seem to be satisfied.
