standing_alone vs. Buttons* (tradition, atheist, eternal, God)

[standing_alone]

Rodger Rabbit is real! HE IS HE IS! *starts to cry*

Sorry, Rodger Rabbit is not real. He was a cartoon added to the film. He exists the way God does, only in your heart and mind.

How many ways can you do this with a camera?
1) Pray to God that you got the shot ....
....
hmm.... that seems to be it....

No, you forgot photoshop! Also, if you are a skilled photographer (like me), you don't have to worry about messing up your shots.

and so can my lawyer with his big stack of legal documents. *smiles*

Well, if you need to hire a hack in order to fight your battles, I guess that's your business.

You gave no hard evidence that photos are more artistic and beautiful than film.

That's funny, you gave no hard evidence that film is more artistic and beautiful than photos.

I'd like to see how many people respond to the beauty of a film like, "Fight Club" (which is REAL art) or a crappy photo by Noriko Caroll?

I would, too. I bet the results would suprise you, not me.

I doubt you even know who he is without googling!

Somehow, I don't think you did, either.

my point was less complications occur with film, and if complications DO happen, its easy to redo anything you like. Motion pictures give you freedom still shots never could. (not without photoshop anyway)

Hmmmmm. Could the inferiority of motion picture film be the reason that more techniques are required to improve it. Perhaps, since still photography is superior, photoshop is all that's needed. Whoah-ho! Debat that!

So you're saying if they made a new gay marriage law that passed legislation, it wouldnt be right?

It would depend on what the law states - and this has nothing to do with still photography compared to motion picture.

.... yes, you sleep, and sleep well....*mumbles* calling me ugly..... no one knows how much longer they will live....especailly you....

Is that a death threat? I bet there are rules against death threats on this forum as well. But, I'm not scared. You don't have a key card to get in the dorms and I live on the fourth floor (and the elevator is almost always never on). I'd like to see you try to climb all those stairs! But, if you do keep up with such threats, I will notify the police and call my lawyer. I'd like to see your pathetic lawyer take on Johnny Cochran's ghost!

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by standing-alone

No, you forgot photoshop! Also, if you are a skilled photographer (like me), you don't have to worry about messing up your shots.

Yes, photoshop, but then the picture becomes a painting, or a drawing, and not the horribly shot picture originally taken. You're an ameteaur! I'll bet you've lost more than half of the shots you've taken. Yours is less costeffective, more time consuming, and all over much more work for much less of a product!

Originally Posted by standing_alone

That's funny, you gave no hard evidence that film is more artistic and beautiful than photos.

....Do i have to? Most work speaks for itself. As in the case of a brillaint film like Pi which opens the mind and the heart, or just a terrible senior picture by Mr. Shemale that reflects, and enhances the absolute worst in a person. Art is not just a picture, its words feelings, tones, love the large spectrum of human emotion that is!

Originally Posted by standing_alone

Hmmmmm. Could the inferiority of motion picture film be the reason that more techniques are required to improve it. Perhaps, since still photography is superior, photoshop is all that's needed. Whoah-ho! Debat that!

It could, perhaps.
Improvements, like photoshop, have been created to aid the still life process too. Both industries have had their fair share of advancements and improvements. What's your point?
I'll have no problem "Debat"ing that.

[standing_alone]

Yes, photoshop, but then the picture becomes a painting, or a drawing, and not the horribly shot picture originally taken.

But it's still art!

You're an ameteaur! I'll bet you've lost more than half of the shots you've taken.

Besides being a personal attack, this statement is totally false! I have only lost one third of all my shots I've taken - and those were on days I wasn't feeling well.

Yours is less costeffective, more time consuming, and all over much more work for much less of a product!

WRONG! My trusty Kodak 35mm disposable cameras only cost me about eight dollars and about thirty dollars to develop the film, depending on which retail store I get it developed at and whether I get doubles or not. And it's not time consuming. I'll I have to do is press a button and I've got my picture. With motion picture, you have to stand around for a while to get fotage worth looking at. Plus, a video camera is way more expensive than a traditional still photo camera.

Most work speaks for itself.

That is correct. Would you like to see some of my work? I'm sure you'll agree it's top-notch.

or just a terrible senior picture by Mr. Shemale that reflects, and enhances the absolute worst in a person.

No, deary, you brought out the worst of yourself in that picture, the photographer did as much as she could to compensate for your weight and appearance.

Art is not just a picture, its words feelings, tones, love the large spectrum of human emotion that is!

Just as well as art is not a segment of video fotage, eh?

Improvements, like photoshop, have been created to aid the still life process too. Both industries have had their fair share of advancements and improvements. What's your point?

My point is that film requires more techniques to improve its defects, whereas still photos require only one.

I'll have no problem "Debat"ing that.

I see you must be running out of arguments when you have to resort to making light of a simple typo.

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by standing_alone

WRONG!

......but am i really?

My trusty Kodak 35mm disposable cameras only cost me about eight dollars and about thirty dollars to develop the film, depending on which retail store I get it developed at and whether I get doubles or not.

and guess what, you have to continue buying 8 dollar cameras, which are easy to misplace, and you have to pay to get doubles, or to get it put on a CD... LOADS more overall than a video camera.

And it's not time consuming. I'll I have to do is press a button and I've got my picture. With motion picture, you have to stand around for a while to get fotage worth looking at.

You have to stand around with ANY kind of camera. You can lose a shot with a regular still shot camera, or continue recording, and have a better chance at getting the shot, in a much wider range.

Plus, a video camera is way more expensive than a traditional still photo camera.

okay, well if you had one disposable camera once every month at 8dollars a piece, in two years that comes to roughly 200 dollars. Not to mention you throw half of those pictures out, get doubles....etc.
Some great motion picture cameras are 170 dollars, you pay once, and you're set. You dont have to keep buying film because you can record over things, and it lasts longer.

My point is that film requires more techniques to improve its defects, whereas still photos require only one.

not necissarily, film requires TONS of technique. Look at films like "Requiem for a dream" or "Donnie Darko" ... those could not have been done without some SERIOUS talent behind it!

I see you must be running out of arguments when you have to resort to making light of a simple typo.

nah, i just thought it was funny

[standing_alone]

......but am i really?

Yes, you really are.

you have to continue buying 8 dollar cameras, which are easy to misplace, and you have to pay to get doubles, or to get it put on a CD... LOADS more overall than a video camera.

I've never misplaced a camera. I have my wits about me, unlike you. And video cameras are significantly higher priced than disposable cameras and picture developing. AND I NEVER GET MY PICTURES PUT ON A CD! That's profaning the tradition of still photography, by introducing such sophisticated technology.

You have to stand around with ANY kind of camera. You can lose a shot with a regular still shot camera, or continue recording, and have a better chance at getting the shot, in a much wider range.

Bah! Poppycock!

okay, well if you had one disposable camera once every month at 8dollars a piece, in two years that comes to roughly 200 dollars. Not to mention you throw half of those pictures out, get doubles....etc.
Some great motion picture cameras are 170 dollars, you pay once, and you're set. You dont have to keep buying film because you can record over things, and it lasts longer.

Can you provide a source with a link to back this up? I find this hard to believe.

film requires TONS of technique.

But not nearly as much as still photography. You need to get the picture at the right angle, make sure the sun is in a direction so it doesn't mess up the shot, deal with weather conditions, position yourself in sometimes uncomfortable poses just to get the best shot, and etc.

nah, i just thought it was funny

It wasn't.

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by standing_alone

I've never misplaced a camera. I have my wits about me, unlike you. And video cameras are significantly higher priced than disposable cameras and picture developing. AND I NEVER GET MY PICTURES PUT ON A CD! That's profaning the tradition of still photography, by introducing such sophisticated technology.

So you have problems with technology now? Why defend still shots then? cameras were a big part of technology back in the day.

Can you provide a source with a link to back this up? I find this hard to believe.

One word: EBAY

But not nearly as much as still photography. You need to get the picture at the right angle, make sure the sun is in a direction so it doesn't mess up the shot, deal with weather conditions, position yourself in sometimes uncomfortable poses just to get the best shot, and etc.

the same work, if not more, goes into motion pictures!

It wasn't.

es tut mir lied....

[standing_alone]

So you have problems with technology now? Why defend still shots then? cameras were a big part of technology back in the day.

Key words being back in the day. Now, it's a tradition, and not really much of a technology.

One word: EBAY

Didn't provide a link.

the same work, if not more, goes into motion pictures!

Prove it!

es tut mir lied....

Ja?! Du bist sehr blöd und dick. Du riechts wie Käse! Du sprichts deutsch wie ein Hund!

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by standing_alone

Key words being back in the day. Now, it's a tradition, and not really much of a technology.

and that is a terrible argument, as i'm sure you're aware....

Didn't provide a link.

Too lazy to look it up yourself?

Ja?! Du bist sehr blöd und dick. Du riechts wie Käse! Du sprichts deutsch wie ein Hund!

Thick, eh? cheeze, eh? well then.... *rolls up sleves* makes me want food....

BACK TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND:

Motion pictures are better over all because they show diversity, are versitile, are more costeffective (over longer periods of time), have better quality, and are better when dealing with any kind of artform.

Still life shots can only show one side to things, and are not nearly as pliable in terms of quality, usefulness, and cost. They cannot show the full range of motion that motion picture film displays.

All over, video cameras are better. My evidence for this can be clearly shown through out the entire thread thus far. *takes a bow* Thank you...

[standing_alone]

Too lazy to look it up yourself?

Why, yes! Yes I am!

Thick, eh? cheeze, eh? well then.... *rolls up sleves* makes me want food....

What a suprise!