Anton Papich

Thank you very much Deniz! If you ment on my photos, thank you again! Exactly! I will tell you on my own example. I had some rolls of Kodachrome, that I had to shoot asap, since Dwayne's Photo as you know developed it only till 31.12.2010. Oh boy, what a problem I had! I had only 36 exposures per roll, and I didn't know what to take picture of. I mean, I was wandering around town, torturing myself on what to spend couple of rolls. Why? Because I simply don't think in "digital way". I'm not used to go out and shoot 1500 photos in one day. I just can't. That is that psychological factor you mentioned and you got it right to the spot. I have even more extreme example, when I torture myself to spend 12 exposures of 120 film. I don't say everybody are like me, but I also doubt that there is anyone with digital camera who, when goes out, doesn't take at least 100 photos.

Film has aestethics that digital doesn't have, and I doubt it ever will. But David made good remark on this: Now imagine this happened with video from 80s and that digital never came. Imagine that young generations would go crazy for VHS and tell you how better is than film. Imagine if every indie film has look of Trash Humpers. Oh noes! :o Now, little more serious remark on this. Since my hobby is analog photography, I myself quite often get remarks why aren't my photos so sharp ( well, the main reason is lousy scanner, not possibilities of film ), or that my black&white conversion could be better ( altough I use only black&white film for home developing ) etc. Main problem with this is next line which I will wrote: People today do not look on content, rather on form, which is for me biggest problem and reason why we got so much, well, I would say mediocre art. P.S. Happy New Year everyone!

I would like to watch it, but could you please write subtitles in English? Thanks.

Hear, hear! :lol: I must say, this is probably most common argument I see on forums or internet in general, when future of film is an issue, and your irony visualised it at its best.

Which one?

Well, film is dying for, how much, 15 years now? :D I also agree, that there is nothing like film, and altough I shoot only analog photography, I'm not so sure that shooting film in cinematography would be my choice - only reason is price, nothing else. Film is better in my humble opinion in any way then digital.

Reading you guys, I must say I never thought about it from your view. As someone wrote, it is true irony, that in LA you have problems with that ( or California in general ). What about other states? Does your legislative is pretty much same for this issue across whole USA, or every state has particular law? And as for UK, I read also that you had problems after those attacks in London. I will write from my experience of photography. To be honest, in Croatia I have no problems with this, except when I'm taking photos of railway stations, on street I never had problems to this date ( that could change, but I hope not ). Also, believe it or not, least problems I had in Iran - yes Iran. I took photos there with no problems, what was forbidden to take pictures police or military would just show me "no-no" with finger and that was all.