3 ms·

Some context for those unfamiliar -- Ken Rockwell is considered to be a bit of an agitator in some photography circles and this particular post is comparable to

by jnovek 16y ago

Some context for those unfamiliar -- Ken Rockwell is considered to be a bit of an agitator in some photography circles and this particular post is comparable to Zed Shaw's "Rails is a Ghetto" in infamy. At the time there was a lot of sensationalist noise that film was "dead", and I think that's why he spends so much time focusing on the virtues of film photography.

famousactress 16y ago
I'm not sure that's a very fair assessment. The article was an even-handed reminder that both tools are useful and can serve different purposes. We lost Kodachrome, we lost Polaroid (for a while).. I think there's a handful of folks trying to make sure that with the influx of interest in digital photography that people are aware that film still exists and does a few things that your digital camera doesn't.
- jnovek 16y ago
  I didn't claim that film was inferior or superior to digital -- in fact, I shoot mostly film and run a color darkroom in my home. You may not recall, but at the time, 2006, there were many articles declaring the death of film. The film market was rapidly contracting, Agfa had recently gone bankrupt and Kodak was cancelling lines left and right. The popular opinion was that film would be gone "in 10 years" and Ken Rockwell -- love him or hate him -- was QUITE the agitator for suggesting otherwise. Happily for those of us who enjoy shooting film, he was correct. Film is the right tool for some jobs and digital is the right tool for others. Film markets stopped contracting and now we're even seeing some new and interesting lines (new Maco/Rollei emulsions new Polaroid integral films, etc).
lurkinggrue 16y ago
> - Ken Rockwell is considered to be a bit of an agitator in some photography circles. That's putting it lightly, most in those circles say "Ken Rockwell is a douche."

3 ms·

Some context for those unfamiliar -- Ken Rockwell is considered to be a bit of an agitator in some photography circles and this particular post is comparable to

by jnovek 16y ago

famousactress 16y ago
I'm not sure that's a very fair assessment. The article was an even-handed reminder that both tools are useful and can serve different purposes. We lost Kodachrome, we lost Polaroid (for a while).. I think there's a handful of folks trying to make sure that with the influx of interest in digital photography that people are aware that film still exists and does a few things that your digital camera doesn't.
- jnovek 16y ago
  I didn't claim that film was inferior or superior to digital -- in fact, I shoot mostly film and run a color darkroom in my home. You may not recall, but at the time, 2006, there were many articles declaring the death of film. The film market was rapidly contracting, Agfa had recently gone bankrupt and Kodak was cancelling lines left and right. The popular opinion was that film would be gone "in 10 years" and Ken Rockwell -- love him or hate him -- was QUITE the agitator for suggesting otherwise. Happily for those of us who enjoy shooting film, he was correct. Film is the right tool for some jobs and digital is the right tool for others. Film markets stopped contracting and now we're even seeing some new and interesting lines (new Maco/Rollei emulsions new Polaroid integral films, etc).
lurkinggrue 16y ago
> - Ken Rockwell is considered to be a bit of an agitator in some photography circles. That's putting it lightly, most in those circles say "Ken Rockwell is a douche."