Film photography is ANALOG!

nspatel said:

A couple more cents . . .

If you project light through a negative it produces an image. I bet if you project light through a jpg file if doesn't produce much.

Click to expand...

Sure it will. You just have to use a DeVere 504DS enlarger...you can make fine B&W prints with the 504 from a good JPG file.

For a digital camera to work you must convert light in to electricity, that's an analogie. Then you have to convert that electricity in to digits, that's another analogie.
Computer world is an analogue world even if it works with digits.

Juanito

Helen B said:

"Analogic" is not a defined word as far as I know

Click to expand...

Helen, I did check on my sole English to Italian dictionary at home (Garzanti, 1984 edition). It does report the word as such:

analogic(al): (pronunce) agg. analògico

The word exists in english. May "analog" be american slang perhaps?

From the OED:

analogic, a,
Of or belonging to analogy. {dag}a. Constituted by the use of analogy; figurative (obs.). b. Of analogy.

1677 GALE Crt. Gentiles III. 198 Gods preceptive wil is only in an analogic, figurative, improper sense termed the wil of God.
1864 BROWNING Mr. Sludge 823 By all analogic likelihood.
1878 GEO. ELIOT Coll. Breakf. P. 160, I will put your case In analogic form.

Click to expand...

Though, it is a very rare word to see - can't say I ever recall seeing it used. It is not really the same as "analogue" - has closer ties to "analogy"

Cheers, Bob.

P.S. The online OED is available FOC until 1st Feb thanks to a BBC program (Balderdash and Piffle)... http://www.oed.com/bbcwords/

2001 additions to the OED describe Analogue recording techniques etc... and includes:

In extended use, contrasted with digital. a. Designating the original or traditional version of something that now has a digital or computerized equivalent

Click to expand...

.

Yes, it seems that the correct word in english is "analogue" ("analog" IS american slang, see OED as well), "analogic" having quite a different meaning, though it's clear that both italian and french equivalent come from the latter.

This may be the first case of "false friends" having indeed the same meaning. Very interesting.

My humble apologies. I have heard 'analogic' but had never found it in a dictionary, only the close 'analogical' that I mentioned. At least I got the link to 'analogy' rather than 'analogue' right, so I don't feel too bad. But I do feel bad.

Oh well,
Helen

Just to complicate you even more, its a greek combine of the word "logos" with the prefix "ana", to mean what you have already stated, "like something", "comparable", "equal to", etc.
All this scientific and technological terminology which is based on greek is mostly incorrect though. An example is the "microbe" which is read as "small life" but in greek it really means "short life".

Marco Gilardetti said:

Yes, it seems that the correct word in english is "analogue" ("analog" IS american slang, see OED as well), "analogic" having quite a different meaning, though it's clear that both italian and french equivalent come from the latter.

This may be the first case of "false friends" having indeed the same meaning. Very interesting.

Click to expand...

"Analog" is not slang: it's simply the American spelling of "analogue" - being based in the UK, the OED naturally puts the British spelling first. In English, lots of different words have the same or very similar meaning (and quite often, the same words have totally different meanings, depending on context) - makes learning English a real pain for those not born to it... While it is still available for free, look up the OED meaning(s) for the word "set" - only three letters, must be easy right?.... Starts here: Dead Link Removed

Cheers, Bob.

French, analogous, analogue, from Medieval Latin analogus, from Greek analogos, proportionate. ;-)

tim atherton said:

Presumably then, dye transfer prints are not photographs? (and unlike your photo/gravure comparison, dye transfer prints by well known photographic artists usually attract far higher prices than "actual" colour photographic ("C")prints - due to their generally superior quality).

It would also seem to exclude transparencies/slides to some extent.

Though it could also be seen to include digital images displayed on certain types of monitors.

Of course dictionary definitions are rarely much more use than as a general guide. They nearly always rely on an abbreviated form of the lowest common denominator. Take any field in which you happen to be a specialist and check the dictionary definitions - they are often inaccurate or fall so far short of being useful they are next to useless. (I have well regarded dictionaries on my shelf that have a different definition of "photograph" than the one quoted here - we could go on all day in a pointless exercise of quoting them back and forth)

People do indeed talk about "seeing a photograph in the newspaper" - it is entirely accepted usage. The definition of "photograph" is broader rather than narrower.

Click to expand...

Only if you accept the abbreviated lowest common denominator type of definition that you reject just one paragraph above. Should we accept definitions that " fall so far short of being useful they are next to useless"? the fact that John Q Public calls a newspaper image a photo and the other Johns accept it doesnt make it so. I will use your example-take a field that you specialize in and look at well-accepted common useage that is unacceptable in your field. Who is right? It isnt John Q Public. I can think of numerous terms in my specialty field that the public misuses. The misuse is accepted (by others who misuse) and tolerated by specialists, but still incorrect.

How does one record patterns of light without a light-sensitive surface? If we make the light sensitive elements an orderly arrangement of electonic photocells we of APUg weep over the loss of film which is a random arrangement of light sensitive elements that obey certain laws of photochemistry. I think the weeping is more over the ability of anybody to make a picture on paper or transparency. We should perhaps form a guild like the ancient guild of trumpeters wo would smash the teeth of anyone found performing in public who was not a member of the guild.

There is a mystique involved in both cases. Who among us could make an array of photocells? Many among US could make a photosensitive coating for a plate of glass, and another sensitive coating for a piece of paper, and capture an instant of time or a picture of a loved one, but we are a rare enough breed that we cannot support a business that makes the photosensitive surfaces for us, now that anyone can buy an array of photoelectric devices with a lens in front of it and make paper prints from what it sees and send the electron omages to other parts of the world so that Aunt Jane can see her latest niece.

Snapshots. Those and commercial illustrations. They are what made it profitable to produce the raw materials out of which we produce what we like to call works of art. Perhaps the person with a piece of canvas, some brushes and some pigments will have the last laugh after all. Some of them, among them a couple of my daughters, can make what I need a camera and darkroom and film and printing paper for.

I'm crying too, but I'm 78 years old and surely won't have too much longer to cry.

gainer said:

There is a mystique involved in both cases. Who among us could make an array of photocells?

Click to expand...

[disconnected rant]

The more I play with and learn about electronics, electricity and the fundamental physics of components (semiconductors etc...) the closer I get to understanding a larger array of how certain 'wonder-gadget' devices work and could maybe given time (a LOT of time) and the right materials come up with a rough working version of any on my own...

When I was recently studying robotics at engineering school here in Auckland my classmates and I pondered how long it would take a group of recent graduates - 1 from each department -given nothing but an island with abundant natural resources to build a helicopter - we estimated between 10 and 20 years ...

An array of photocells ? probably much longer (to the resolution we have today in consumer cells) - but do-able in a lifetime

'Digital' is an abstraction that just makes things easier to think about in terms of process once the fundamental infrastructure that allows that process is put in place - however, the infrastructure (the one I can feel, see and hear) is %99.9999 analog..

[/disconnected rant]

One more war story from an old warrior, if you count fighting against the inevitable encroachment of things digital. Once upon a time I was employed by NASA to do research in human factors. One of our aims was the mathematical representation of "The" human operator. The hope was to minimize development time of new control systems while keeping the man in the loop, as well as to minimize danger to test pilots. If you can get past the paradoxical idea of finding a math model of the man that can take his place for the purpose of designing a control system that will allow him to keep his place, you can see the need for a general purpose computer that is fast enough and accurate enough to do the job. In 1960 there was no such digital computer. We used analog computers with vacuum tube amplifiers, linear to plus or minus 100 volts with so little phase shift that you could connest the output directly to the negative input without oscillation. Feedback through a large capacitor made an amplifier into an integrator over time.

By the time I retired in 1982, we could retire our analog computer. One huge supercomputer was doing all the data reduction, bookkeeping and driving of dynamic simulators for the whole Langley Research Center.

If our only arguments in favor of the traditional methods of photography are no better than they have been, we will lose it except for those who really return to its origins. My grandfather had a 5x7 plate camera that was about as portable as one could get then, and left over 100 of those negatives to rot in the attic after he died. I was able to rescue many of them by D*****l (expletive deleted) means. I'm amazed at what he did with that camera, but I hope I don't have to do it myself that way.

gainer said:

Many among US could make a photosensitive coating for a plate of glass, and another sensitive coating for a piece of paper, and capture an instant of time or a picture of a loved one,............

I'm crying too, but I'm 78 years old and surely won't have too much longer to cry.

Click to expand...

If many of US could do it, how come so few are doing it?

If many of US want to, how come so few want to learn to do it.

I'm a bit younger than you are Patrick, but I'm not crying, I'm trying to do something to change the attitudes and reactions out there. I'm trying to teach it to others.

Once the ability to make photosensitive materials is gone, it is gone. Pt/Pd, Daugerrotype and all of the other alternative processes are beautiful and useful and have their place, but the silver halide grain emulsion is the only one that gives us speed and spectral sensitivity, something we need for color analog photography. All of the other systems are relegated to UV sensitivity or blue light sensitivity and will need digital intervention to allow for color analog photography.

Use it or lose it. Learn how or lose it people.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

If many of US could do it, how come so few are doing it?

If many of US want to, how come so few want to learn to do it.

I'm a bit younger than you are Patrick, but I'm not crying, I'm trying to do something to change the attitudes and reactions out there. I'm trying to teach it to others.

Once the ability to make photosensitive materials is gone, it is gone. Pt/Pd, Daugerrotype and all of the other alternative processes are beautiful and useful and have their place, but the silver halide grain emulsion is the only one that gives us speed and spectral sensitivity, something we need for color analog photography. All of the other systems are relegated to UV sensitivity or blue light sensitivity and will need digital intervention to allow for color analog photography.

Use it or lose it. Learn how or lose it people.

PE

Click to expand...

I spent my working life doing research in aerodynamics, human factors, and associated analytical techniques, part of which was the use of photography. There is a long distance between keeping up with the latest technology and discovering or designing it. You have had the latter experience, probably to the extent that you know things you are not allowed to divulge even after retirement. How long did it take to learn what you know? How much of it was learned through formal education?
Could you produce or provide the knowledge to produce a high speed panchromatic emulsion? Could you coat it on film or plates for your own use or for sale to others?
Surely there will be enough business from serious photographers to keep at least one manufacturer in business, but we may not be able to get what we want. Even portrait photographers are going to digital. The wife of one of my nephews is a commercial portrait photographer who does fine work. She uses digital for all but children, and the only reason for that is that the time between shots is too long for active kids. How long will that be the case? I'm sure that sports photographers are using digital cameras now. When the quality of the image of a fast digital camera is that of medium format, she will no longer be buying film. If you want to see her web site:
Dead Link Removed

Patrick, yes, I can provide the knowledge to produce high speed panchromatic emulsions. I can coat it on film or plates in sizes up to 8x10. Quality of the film coatings is not up to current production standards, but paper coatings are. With time, I may reach current production standards on film, but right now they are at a level of about the 1900s.

Come to my workshop and I'll teach you how.

PE