Film Cameras for Dummies

film vs. digital

There are some freelancers who are irritating and some who are downright abhorrent. Today's is at the abhorrent end of the scale, a freelancer who claims the name Shalini Madhav (also known as Teresa Counts, A. J. Titu, or Francis Carlson; and probably others). A staffer first found her crapalicious content at EzineArticles.com, but noticed that she(?) had crossposted it to other sites... at least a dozen of them, we think. That's bad enough in and of itself, but the content is partially questionable and partially spun. Take a gander at some of the rubbish in her "The Advantages of Film Cameras in a Digital Age."

Shalini's second sentence demonstrates the questionable quality of her composition and her tenuous grasp of her subject:

"The advent of digital photography has almost replaced the conventional film photography in the consumer market."

What does that even mean? We're pretty sure digital cameras have replaced film cameras in the consumer market, but photography isn't a consumer quantity, Shalini! Madhav also seems a bit on the confused side when it comes to her first "advantage" of film cameras:

"Digital camera sensors are made from pixels or grid [sic] of photo elements."

Well, no, camera sensors aren't made of "pixels or grid of photo elements"; they are charge-coupled devices with a grid of cells. The cells correspond to pixels in the resulting image; they are not actually pixels themselves. Moving right along, Shalini claims that,

"...you can find film media in many sizes ranging from 35mm to 135mm. it's important to keep in mind that even the smallest size of the film doesn't match the 24x36m film. In simple words, film cameras offer higher 'resolution' than digital cameras."

Hate to tell you, Shalini, but you can find film in sizes up to 8 x 10 (and larger). That's not to mention that we find "the smallest size of the film doesn't match the 24x36m film" impossible to translate to comprehensible English. Here's another...

"...the scope for falsification of digital photos is wider, which is not true for film photography."

We get what you're trying to say, Shalini, but in reality that means nothing. And how about this crap:

"You don't need a storage medium in case of a film camera. All you need is a film reel."

A "film reel"? Does this moron even know what she's talking about? And finally, there's this stupidification:

"You have to have the right OS, data drivers, motherboards and other components for the system to work. Moreover, you also have to have large hard drives to store the images for backups. This adds to the effort and cost. In case of film cameras, you don't have any of these problems."

Is she kidding? Does this putz not realize that those "problems" haven't been an issue in this century?
While we're at it, our Dumbass of the Day didn't mention the most obvious difference between film and digital photography (besides the incredible ease of taking multiple images), the process of developing and printing film. That's probably because she has no idea what she's talking about.

That's no surprise...

copyright © 2019-2022 scmrak

SE - PHOTOGRAPHY