Come on people!

[ricktas]

May soon be gone? Tell that to the folks shooting super 8 cine or wet plate photographers.

I still find nothing but negativity in your post, best keep that out of this section. Out of respect perhaps? Since you're doing a good job of making that last 1% feel unwelcome.

I'm off to go party with the 38,000 odd members of APUG.

Good. Bye!

[MattC]

And another gets banned for upsetting one of the few...

[ricktas]

And another gets banned for upsetting one of the few...

Actually Matt, without going into details, the member had previously been warned repeatedly, been temporarily banned in the past, and there is a lot more to this than is visible on the site.

[hoffy]

Rick, I agree with Matt. This doesn't look good, when, again at face value, you ban someone because they have mentioned another forum.

That being said, for someone like Kryzs, APUG is probably a better place to hang out then here. Me, meh....

[ricktas]

This has nothing to do with APUG! it has to do with the attitude a member had on the site, over a long period of time and repeated warnings (and a prior temporary ban). He himself stated in a thread that he happily baits members, and we got sick of it. The mods and I all discussed this before he was banned. This was not taken lightly and is not an isolated response to this thread. This ban was a response to long ongoing issues, many of which are not visible to members.

[Gregg Bell]

First off, I don't know how arthurking interpreted Krzys's posts, but I never got that message from reading his posts. It almost sounded like you were trying to put words in his mouth. I think Kym missed out on the joke about closing this section as well. I think sometimes you guys needed to lighten up.

I interpreted Kyrzs's response to that, he wants those who are against film to keep their opinion out of the film section, and then on the other hand, he shoots so much film that he sees no point to participate in a no pixels challenge because it is aimed for digital photographers to share their film experience.

Seems like staff came to a conclusion already, This is just my 2 cents though.

[ricktas]

First off, I don't know how arthurking interpreted Krzys's posts, but I never got that message from reading his posts. It almost sounded like you were trying to put words in his mouth. I think Kym missed out on the joke about closing this section as well. I think sometimes you guys needed to lighten up.

I interpreted Kyrzs's response to that, he wants those who are against film to keep their opinion out of the film section, and then on the other hand, he shoots so much film that he sees no point to participate in a no pixels challenge because it is aimed for digital photographers to share their film experience.

Seems like staff came to a conclusion already, This is just my 2 cents though.

As I have said, the decision was not based solely on the content of this thread, it was based on on-going issues over an extended period.

Thread closed.

[arthurking83]

....

I interpreted Kyrzs's response to that, he wants those who are against film to keep their opinion out of the film section, and then on the other hand, he shoots so much film that he sees no point to participate in a no pixels challenge because it is aimed for digital photographers to share their film experience.

Seems like staff came to a conclusion already, This is just my 2 cents though.

everyone is entitled to an opinion on AP and as long as it doesn't come across as 'illegal'(ie. racist/defamatory/etc) we are all allowed to express it.
There was no negativity in my comments, and other members re-interpreted my comments as they saw fit too.. with the end result that most replies became off topic.
I thought my comment was on topic, as the OP expressed concern that the film section was a little bereft of participation. I chose to explain my observations as to why that is.

As to the topic of participation and lacking in motivation!.. that's the lamest argument I've ever heard!(I did have that in mind when Krzys made his point) but that would be exactly like(any of us saying)..

"I shoot digital, so I can't be stuffed posting any images"

if that's not the most conceited/arrogant attitude I've ever come across!....(I dunno what is).

The forum section is not for the sole purpose of any one particular individual to use.
As long as the replies do not deteriorate into name calling and baiting and suchlike they are all allowed to be presented.
The film section is not immune to criticism and general points of view from anyone despite their perceived biases.

And I really would love to know where people get the idea that I(or anyone else) is AGAINST film!!??
Never been against it.. ever! I loved the stuff.. way back when. But digital has only shown how inconvenient it really is(was).

My comments about film(here and on other forums) have never been that it should be stopped because of a bias against it.. They are all simple commentary. Read as they were typed, without any innunedo other than the specific words I've used.
That is, film is a dying medium. It hasn't died yet, but the long term outlook is that it will die, at some unknown future time production of the stuff will cease. It has to cease.
By simple logic and deduction... there is ultimately no future for it(the only question is WHEN!) as production costs increase, and consumer demand decrease, therefore production costs increasing again at disproportionate levels.. Kodak at some point will stop production of film. They can't continue manufacture a product at a loss for too long(and survive in business). The cost of factories/human resources are only ever going to increase, and the raw material(derived form the petrochemical industry) are only going to skyrocket too!!

So who's going to pay $100 per roll in a few years time?
Which stockist is going to tie up all that money, for long term gain, when there's more money to be made selling stuff that sells.

My comments(opinions) are based on what I perceive as logical, and therefore inevitable.. and not based on someone's misinterpretation!(no bias).

If some folks want to bury their heads in the sand and not accept a possible uncertain future for photographic film as it is now, or alternatively, an uber expensive product.. they are more than welcome to express those opinions too. No one is going to stop them.
($30ish for a roll of 135 is about the maximum I'll ever endure).

Compared to digital capture, film is archaic and inconvenient.. YET!! there are always a few good reasons to use film over digital... eg. arge format, and 'AFAIK' X-Ray.
My understanding of X-Ray imaging is that film is still better(higher quality).

But those markets are few and far between and specialised, compared to the average mass market use of film for photography. They'll all go by the wayside, and the future for digital is set, where we really have nothing else to turn too. The devices used to capture digital images may change, but the technical aspect of capturing on digital appears to be set for a long time.
it's my plain and unemotional and unbiased outlook for the future of capturing images.

To me film is a lot like the evolutionary change that happened to the wheel.

Stone-> wood-> steel/alloys/plastics/etc and rubber -> next development stage?.

I don't get emotional over the loss of the stone or wooden wheel as the connection between my car and the road! It's just not worth arguing over

So now that we've definitively taken the OP's thread way off topic.. lets try to get it back on topic, and explain why those with a small glimmer of romantic notion towards film have yet to post up their non-digital images?

My reasons so far have been time, and a lack of any film stock up until a few weeks ago. I have exposed 10 of the 36 frames so far, and look to have the roll finished in the next few weeks. Once it's processed, I'll upload the (new) film images I've managed to get correct.
Hopefully in the next few weeks, I'll also upload any of the scans of old photos I've taken 30 or more years ago.
ATM,too busy looking/sorting/processing/uploading my (easier to manage) digital images.
(that's not a bias!... it's a statement of fact! ).