[yucatanPentax]

In the film era everybody tried to get photos with as little grain as possible, hence medium and large formats, T-Grain film and fine grain developers. So saying lack of grain is lack of character is a misplaced form of romanticism.

Today when you like shooting film but also clean images you can remove the grain in post (HP5+ 135):
///

I came to say the same thing. Seems like in the film days, we spent all our time trying to eliminate the look or impact of grain on the image. When I see a comment like that, my mind pictures a bearded guy riding an old-style bicycle, in a bowler hat, smoking a cigar, and using a handlebar clamp to make an iPhone video of himself going down the street. "I like the old ways. They just do it for me."

To each their own.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

If I look at myself I would make such a remark if I AM JEALOUS! I have not seen your picture, but I know that people make such sour remarks when they envy you... And yes, I often wonder why people turn to film, because it is much more difficult to work with, especially if you have not a darkroom. In the beginning of the CD it sounded so perfect and clean that people complained about the cleanness of the sound especially with classical music. Rumour goes that Decca at that time decided to add some white noise after recording... And your comment was to the point.

[Dartmoor Dave]

There have always been some people who prefer a clean look in their photos and others who prefer a noisier style. In the old days, some people used medium or large format cameras and slow film to get the smoothest possible look, while others pushed 35mm Tri-X to 800 or even higher because they loved the boulder-sized grain.

In the digital era, some people only want to use the latest high resolution cameras with full frame or medium format sensors to get the cleanest possible results, while others are cheerfully using smaller sensors and even "obsolete" technology like CCD because they prefer a more lo-fi look.

Personally I was always the Tri-X at ASA 800 type, and nowadays I shoot happily with tiny or out-of-date digital sensors because I prefer a certain amount of intentional grunginess in my photos. But no preference is objectively the right one, and nobody gets to tell anyone else that they are doing it all wrong.

[Just1MoreDave]

I wonder if someone somewhere misses VHS. I think I would die laughing if there was.

[nutz]

Carburettor -> EFI
Drop side toaster -> popup
Kerosene lanterns -> LED
Hob nail boots -> Rubber sole
DOS -> WYSIWYG
Sulphur drugs -> antibiotics
Drop toilets -> flush toilets
Lead paint -> acrylic


Good old days? I don't think so.

to your list I have to add:
windmills for electricity....and now were going back to windmills
used to have electric cars back in early 1900...guess what, going back to electric cars
had bell bottoms in the 60's...going back to bell bottoms again
backyard gardens went out with fancy supermarkets...gardens have made a huge comeback
funny how things recycle in our little world

[othar]

I wonder if someone somewhere misses VHS. I think I would die laughing if there was.

Why miss them, I still own a few 😅
Admittedly it's a vanishingly low number against DVDs and Blu-rays though

[IsaacReaves]

I wonder if someone somewhere misses VHS. I think I would die laughing if there was.

Sure, but let's agree to leave Betamax out of this.

[AggieDad]

had bell bottoms in the 60's...going back to bell bottoms again

Oh gosh. I hope not!

[AggieDad]

Here is the photo I posted that prompted the original comments. It is nothing special at all; just a travel photo from Yellowstone. "Look, a pretty lake. Let's take a picture." Perhaps I should have included it with my original post. Apologies.

[Kiwizinho]

I think there's a certain amount of irony about people using a digital medium to discuss the fact that an image posted to that medium looks too digital.
Quill pens and letter writing anyone?
Good handwriting is far more pleasing on the eye than digital text on screen. It's pure analogue with no pixels, and if you use the right paper and ink, probably far more archival.

I enjoy both digital and film images, each with their unique characteristics. I don't see one better than the other.

I've even reproduced some of my digital images as cyanotypes, which is a process that predates modern film my quite a few decades, but I'm not going to turn around and tell anyone that their image doesn't look classic enough because it's not blue.

I've also converted quite a few of my photos into oil, watercolour, or acrylic paintings with the help of a projector.

I don't claim that my reproductions are somehow better than someone who's used an enlarger and silver halide paper to reproduce their images, even though I've used a more classical technique.

In fact, when I first started doing this I felt a bit guilty that I wasn't a 'real' artist, because some art snobs who said 'real' artists draw and paint free hand, but then I found some extremely famous and valuable works of art were made with the aid of camera obsuras or from the invention of photography, by means of projection.

I think there were, and still are a few art snobs who consider a photograph not as valuable as a painting, but to me, if it's a pleasing work of art, it's a pleasing work of art regardless of how it's made.

One of the things I've come to understand with painting is that other people have different techniques to me, and although I can't or won't imitate certain styles of art, I can still appreciate it when others create it.

I think the most important thing is to try to work out what your own style is and remain true to it and let others do the same. By all means, learn and experiment with different techniques but if they don't feel right to you, then don't keep using them.

[StiffLegged]

I'd have been tempted to say it was Kodak Pan F (32 ASA) 5"x7" film in a Linhof Super Technica V and you haven't an electron microscope handy to image the grain in the shadows, drat it.

[BigMackCam]

Here is the photo I posted that prompted the original comments. It is nothing special at all; just a travel photo from Yellowstone. "Look, a pretty lake. Let's take a picture." Perhaps I should have included it with my original post. Apologies.

That's a great photo. Personally, I think it's very special... a beautiful scene, captured well, and rendered your way. What could be better?

[yucatanPentax]

I wonder if someone somewhere misses VHS. I think I would die laughing if there was.

We still have some home videos on VHS that need to get transferred over to DVD or hard drive somehow. Had a dual DVD and VHS player for a long time, but the DVD side stopped working, not the VHS side.

[c.a.m]

I wonder if someone somewhere misses VHS.

Nope, haven't tried it yet -- it's too new. I'm still waiting for the technology to be proven.

- Craig

[que es tu]

Folks will always have differences in what they prefer. What would be nice is if we could all agree that the best medium, camera, lens, subject matter, technique etc. is what suits each of us individually. To be fair, the comments you received and summarised above don't strike me as particularly critical... they're merely stating personal preferences. They seem to have been presented respectfully as subjective opinions, rather than statements of supposed "fact"... so in my view, that's fine. One man's meat is another man's poison, as they say

To answer your question, I'm quite certain similar discussions have always occurred... as far back as we can imagine...

From NeanderthalForums:

#1: You eat mammoth raw?
#2: Mm. Raw.
#1: Raw mammoth bad. I cook mammoth...
#2: Uh... On spit?
#1: Uh-uh. In pot...
#3: No like pot. Spit better. Taste smoke...
#4: Mammoth meat suck. Sabre-tooth tiger good!
#1: Cook tiger?
#4: Uh-uh. Eat raw...
#2: Raw mammoth better...

This sounds like the conversation in the break room at my work! I think I work with ACTUAL Neanderthals!!