so why the attitude?

I've heard (not here) a few people who used to shoot with film sort of look down their noses at people who shoot with digital cameras. One woman said she used to love photography but now it's all digital she sold all her gear. I thought to myself, why, nothing is stopping her from still shooting with film if she wants to.
I heard someone else say any idiot can use a dlsr, and again it made me think they're pissed off because photography is accessable to the masses now. Seems some like to think photography should only be available to a few, maybe those who've learned on film. Too bad, the flood gates have opened now.

Folks who say such things are the ones who need professional help to sort out their issues.
My guess is that they feel somewhat threatened and invaded upon with the sudden influx of "Digital Photographers". The exclusivity is gone so all that is left is the elitist/purist attitude. It's utter non-sense and it's ramblings by people who are attempting to hang on to the past. If people like that ran the world, we would have ZERO progress.

In other words, just ignore them! Or more delicately put, f**k 'em!

Sounds like insecurity to me.

I can appreciate film and the process of developing that was required in the past, not something I have personally had experiece with (me being a product of the digital age). I think it's mainly 2 things:

1. (As you mentioned) DSLR is accessible to the masses, so they aren't "special" anymore just because of their technical abilities which may (not always though) have been replaced by AI of digital cameras. Elitism and jealousy.

2. COMPUTERS! OMG!!! The steep learning curve of photoshop, it's something "new" and that they are not accustomed to it. And just because modern photographers KNOW how to used image editing programs, doesn't not mean we necessarily LIKE PP'ing.

I can understand if someone prefers film over digital for whatever reasons, but to completely dump photography is ridiculous!

Go on flickr, type in just about any word and in 5 minutes you can find photographs that you'll be amazed by.

Now imagine having spent 20 years getting as good as you are, only to find someone on flickr in 5 minutes who is worlds better then you, and has only been using a camera since they got a DSLR.

It's bound to make anyone a bit crazy.

If they aren't shooting on 8X10 glass plates in a Deardorff, they're just poseurs like everyone else they look down on?

I appreciate that film requires much more skill and so some might think anyone can do it now, but the really good photographers, those who have an eye for composition, and a good understanding of lighting, and exposure and how to use their camera will still stand out amongst the others. It's a bit like saying any idiot can grab a set of paints and a paint brush, sure they can, but nothings really changed, only a very few will be real artists, but no reason why the rest of us cant enjoy it too. I bet the camera makers have never been happier too.

Socket7 wrote in post #9865734
Go on flickr, type in just about any word and in 5 minutes you can find photographs that you'll be amazed by.

Now imagine having spent 20 years getting as good as you are, only to find someone on flickr in 5 minutes who is worlds better then you, and has only been using a camera since they got a DSLR.

It's bound to make anyone a bit crazy.

Imagine if you had that kind of attitude at your job?
I wonder what would happen if I cried "But it took me years going to school, getting my self certified, reading books, researching. How dare you introduce another programming language" at my job.

I know. I'd get fired, just like those few ex-workers who refused to move on with the technology.

I suggest that there are certain areas in one's life where we just need to say "Who cares what other people think?" and just get on with our own lives.
People lash out against what others do for all sorts of reasons...insecurity, envy, despair...whatever. By all means care about THEM if you wish, but by caring what they think about us we just validate their prejudices and justify their attitudes.
BE YOURSELF! Do your own thing and be creative. Also, and most importantly, learn your trade properly. I don't care if an image is from film or digital capture...it's the quality of the image that matters. There are a lot of really awful digital images out there that prove that skill still matters. Remember this..."Art begins where vision and craft meet!"

I don't look down on anybody's inexperience but, since I grew up on manual film cameras and worked the darkroom I think I may know where some of this perception comes from.

Obviously, there are huge differences between the old manual film cameras and the DSLR. Using the DSLR an inexperienced person can snap a properly exposed image without understanding the basics of exposure: ISO, Shutter Speed & Aperture. One only needs to put it in the "green box mode" and THE CAMERA can take care of darn near anything, or put it in Av mode and THE CAMERA matches the correct shutter speed, or use Tv mode and THE CAMERA will match the correct aperture. Since the camera is making all of these decisions for you, (even focusing!) are you really the photographer? Who is in control?

The second major difference regarding DSLR shooters vs. manual film shooters is that, because of their inherent lack of photography skills, (because the camera is making the decisions) their strength lies in computer software. Thus, the DSLR shooter often manipulates an image to such a degree that it no longer represents the truth of what they captured. I have seen people add a frog from one shoot into the pond's edge from another, or add the "flare effect" to an image or smooth the skin so much that their model's face looks like plastic or, my personal pet-peeve, overly processed HDR)

Now, I'm not saying this is good or bad as photography is an art form and all art is subjective and open to different styles, techniques and interpretations but ultimately it is the paying audience, like any other customer based business, that has the final say.

However, photographically speaking, when one does not have to master basic photographic principles and can change images to such a degree using their software filled computer are they truly a photographer, or a graphic artist?

IMO, this is where the difference lies. To be sure, we edited in the darkroom as well. I could increase/decrease development time of the film while in the darkroom I could crop, dodge and burn in the printing stage (that's "trim" and "stamp" to you young fellers), but manipulations in the old darkroom were very limited and it was unheard of to try and stick a frog from one shot into the pond of another as it was just, well, unethical. There was a pride in professionalism regarding ones ability of getting it right in the camera and this really became prevalent when you shot transparency (slide) film. For there is no manipulating to save the image when you shoot transparencies. You either had the shot or you didn't and making the shot reflected your mastery of the craft.

It is a different world we live in today and I think what it boils down to is that 30 years ago the camera was the primary tool of the photographer and the darkroom was secondary whereas today the computer is the primary tool and the camera is secondary.

"I'll photoshop it later" seems to be the mantra for the new kids shooting DSLR. I will pursue newer technology but only to the degree that it helps my photography, and does not over power it for we all of us need to be continually adapting to the technology or we will fade away like an 8x10 view camera.

Naturalist wrote in post #9866104
It is a different world we live in today and I think what it boils down to is that 30 years ago the camera was the primary tool of the photographer and the darkroom was secondary whereas today the computer is the primary tool and the camera is secondary.

"I'll photoshop it later" seems to be the mantra for the new kids shooting DSLR. I will pursue newer technology but only to the degree that it helps my photography, and does not over power it for we all of us need to be continually adapting to the technology or we will fade away like an 8x10 view camera.

I completely disagree and it's really a very bad generalization of DSLR shooters. Sure, with the advent of the DSLR, heck even Digital P&S Cameras, it seems like everyone has a camera of some kind. Not to mention the cell phones, iPhones, etc.

Perhaps the pace of learning how to use the DSLR is much quicker b/c you have instant results. However, the fact that you still have to know the basics remains the same. People who will put time into it will. People who want to shoot the DSLR as a P&S camera won't even bother learning them. Again, I don't think that changed with the DSLR. That's just how people are.

People act like Photoshop is a 4 letter word. I don't get that. It's just another tool to materialize your vision. Sure, you've got plugins and actions galore, but again, just more tools at the photographer's disposal.

It just sounds like sour grapes to me...that the DSLR shooters of today can do soooooooo much more and soooooo much easier than ever before.

Like it or not, that's the world we live in. You are free to either stay behind, or move forward. Nothing wrong with either IMO.

Naturalist wrote in post #9866104
Obviously, there are huge differences between the old manual film cameras and the DSLR. Using the DSLR an inexperienced person can snap a properly exposed image without understanding the basics of exposure: ISO, Shutter Speed & Aperture. One only needs to put it in the "green box mode" and THE CAMERA can take care of darn near anything, or put it in Av mode and THE CAMERA matches the correct shutter speed, or use Tv mode and THE CAMERA will match the correct aperture. Since the camera is making all of these decisions for you, (even focusing!) are you really the photographer? Who is in control?

Oh if only it were that easy!

Have you ever actually tried using Green Box? It's verrrrrry hit or miss. Heck you can't even select the focus point you want active. Av/Tv let you choose your focus point but exposure is the same hit or miss unless you mess with EC.

I think there's always going to be the new vs the old tech. It's like vinyl vs mp3 dj's, or tube vs digital amp, etc.

The point being about Flickr is a solid reason. I been doing photography for a while and know many people who picked up a DSLR and within weeks were taking amazing photos. It's a bit hard to swallow that you either suck or suddendly the skill is so easy anyone can do it. But I honestly think it's just in the hands of so many more gifted people, and photography will always require skill.

Also as someone who ventured from film to digital it inspires me to go further and learn. When I look at Flickr I'll just do a random search and find some amazing photos, these aren't pros but people just with a camera. It's a small price to see the end of film but we're gaining a new generation of photographers.

It's a factor of life.

Just like when automatic gearboxes were invented. People driving manual gearboxes would have looked down their nose at people not having to change gears

I once met someone who went to the brooks institute of photo (not knocking them). This person was traveling and I met them through a friend, who said that they were on their 2nd year of a degree in photo and thought it'd be cool to meet a pro fine art photog they knew...etc.

The conversation went sour pretty quick when I didn't know what the hell "analogue" was (Just say film you wordy bastards!)

The result...."oh how can you not know what analogue is, digital is cheating, blah blah blah, i only believe in true photography, my instructor says this and that, I have 2 years to go and im going to be a professional fine art photographer with so much more knowledge than you..blah blah blah blah blah.."

Reality check?