<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Artist of the Week Series #3, rouge rouge, Back to Film</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thomashawk.com/2008/11/new-artist-of-week-series-3-rogue-rogue.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thomashawk.com/2008/11/new-artist-of-week-series-3-rogue-rogue.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:33:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Danno</title>
		<link>http://thomashawk.com/2008/11/new-artist-of-week-series-3-rogue-rogue.html/comment-page-1#comment-299</link>
		<dc:creator>Danno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=68#comment-299</guid>
		<description>I may not be part of the &quot;cool club&quot; for photographers, but I don&#039;t mind admitting that I&#039;m glad film is on its way out. Oh, it may never die, but it&#039;s definitely becoming a niche art thing. Frankly, I don&#039;t get it. I shot film for years, and I feel liberated to be without it. Yes, it is expensive and you are &quot;committed&quot; to every shot. But IMHO, you need to be committed if you think that&#039;s the best way to do photography. I don&#039;t understand the comments of &quot;great colors&quot; when I see a film shot that has its color balance out of whack. There&#039;s the retro nostalgia of photography with grainy &amp; imbalanced/faded/weird colors that somehow makes the photo special when it would otherwise be a boring photo. Rather than praise the artist for his content and skill at producing a great work, we pat him on the back for using a Polaroid, something anyone could do for pretty cheap for like the last 30 years. I just think that a lot of photographers get undeserved credit for being &quot;artsy&quot; when there is nothing artistic about using old tools that don&#039;t perform as well as modern tools. Hooray, you took a crappy photo with a broken camera using film technology that has been around for a century! Big freaking deal. None of these photos really jumps out at me, and there&#039;s nothing about their look or quality that couldn&#039;t be reproduced digitally. In fact, without their &quot;look&quot; most of these photos would be pretty damn boring.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sorry, if this feels like a grumpy old man rant, but I just think this retro bandwagon that photogs are jumping on these days is a bit silly. It&#039;s ironic that we&#039;ve finally achieved a revolution in photography in the past 5 years and now it&#039;s suddenly popular to go back to the technology everyone was so eager to get away from. I think some people have spent too many nights in darkrooms with poor ventilation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I may not be part of the &quot;cool club&quot; for photographers, but I don&#39;t mind admitting that I&#39;m glad film is on its way out. Oh, it may never die, but it&#39;s definitely becoming a niche art thing. Frankly, I don&#39;t get it. I shot film for years, and I feel liberated to be without it. Yes, it is expensive and you are &quot;committed&quot; to every shot. But IMHO, you need to be committed if you think that&#39;s the best way to do photography. I don&#39;t understand the comments of &quot;great colors&quot; when I see a film shot that has its color balance out of whack. There&#39;s the retro nostalgia of photography with grainy &#038; imbalanced/faded/weird colors that somehow makes the photo special when it would otherwise be a boring photo. Rather than praise the artist for his content and skill at producing a great work, we pat him on the back for using a Polaroid, something anyone could do for pretty cheap for like the last 30 years. I just think that a lot of photographers get undeserved credit for being &quot;artsy&quot; when there is nothing artistic about using old tools that don&#39;t perform as well as modern tools. Hooray, you took a crappy photo with a broken camera using film technology that has been around for a century! Big freaking deal. None of these photos really jumps out at me, and there&#39;s nothing about their look or quality that couldn&#39;t be reproduced digitally. In fact, without their &quot;look&quot; most of these photos would be pretty damn boring.</p>
<p>Sorry, if this feels like a grumpy old man rant, but I just think this retro bandwagon that photogs are jumping on these days is a bit silly. It&#39;s ironic that we&#39;ve finally achieved a revolution in photography in the past 5 years and now it&#39;s suddenly popular to go back to the technology everyone was so eager to get away from. I think some people have spent too many nights in darkrooms with poor ventilation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://thomashawk.com/2008/11/new-artist-of-week-series-3-rogue-rogue.html/comment-page-1#comment-300</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=68#comment-300</guid>
		<description>Oooh, good one!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-fireinthesky</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oooh, good one!</p>
<p>-fireinthesky</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
