How Analog is silver imaging really?

[copake_ham]

* Analog is a misnomer
* Continuous tone is an illusion

Personally I like George's definition better: CHEMICAL photography, as opposed to ELECTRONIC photography. End of story.

Michel,

It's never "end of story" with threads like this.

There's always a Keith to throw ANOTHER log on the fire!

Some folk just don't have much of anything better to do in their life. Me, I do. I'm going to bed!

 

[DannL]

Stop it! That definition has nothing to do with photography. Nothing whatsoever. Did you even read the definition of an analog as it is found in chemistry? You should be ashamed of yourself. Go ahead, keep it up . . . Robert. One more attempt to misguide this class and I have everyone on the forum doing 100 push-ups. And guess who they'll have to thank for it.

That sure didn't come across well, now that I read it. It was intended as sarcasm. Here's what it should have said, for the record . . .

"That definition has nothing to do with photography."

 

[MattKing]

Sadly, I think that "Analogue Photography" is reactionary.

By that, I mean that the label "Analogue" is a reaction to the onset of electronic/digital based image capture. It is used in contradistinction to electronic/digital based systems.

The continuous tone nature of most non-electronic image capture systems is somewhat analogous to analogue based measurement systems (whew!) but both non-electronic image capture systems and electronic/digital based image capture systems result in useful analogues to reality (double whew!).

Isn't language wonderful?

Matt

P.S. I intentionally avoided the use of the word photography here, in an attempt to side step the "photography" excludes electronic/digital processes.

 

[DannL]

Can I be really quite honest with you?

You really are beginning to act like a troll on this thread . . . . . . And, in all honesty, I really couldn't give a darn if you don't like the term - so what? Who put you in charge?

George, It's not necessary to get all pissy, name calling, and protective of your rightful position in the hierarchy of this forum. Your position is safe. So with that, I promise not to address you if you would be so respectful as to do likewise. Cheers!

 

[roteague]

Stop it! That definition has nothing to do with photography. Nothing whatsoever. Did you even read the definition of an analog as it is found in chemistry? You should be ashamed of yourself. Go ahead, keep it up . . . Robert. One more attempt to misguide this class and I have everyone on the forum doing 100 push-ups. And guess who they'll have to thank for it.

I'm tired of dealing with your issues. You are doing everything you can to concede a point. The definition doesn't have to do with photography, its only point is to show you that the term analog is used in ways other than in electronic circuits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_photography

 

[Chuck_P]

Analog?......... It's that smell of a box or roll of film when it is opened for the first time. Now that's analog.

 

[Daniel_OB]

Now I think that "analog photography" is a NEW AND IMPROVED name for photography.
The next step should be to remove someting from the name not to keep it so long, so
NEW AND IMPROVED name might be is "analography"
....

Just where ever I go I see that this time will be recorded as the worst time in human's history. Might be that TV and internet made that just all stupidity come on the surface, and even pushed it on higher energy level.

It is better for me to go into my printerless-chamber to make some analogopicts.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

That sure didn't come across well, now that I read it. It was intended as sarcasm. Here's what it should have said, for the record . . .

"That definition has nothing to do with photography."

Well, DUH! You just agreed with my explanation that "analog" had NEVER anything to do with photography until recently. Why do you complain?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Michel,

It's never "end of story" with threads like this.

There's always a Keith to throw ANOTHER log on the fire!

Some folk just don't have much of anything better to do in their life. Me, I do. I'm going to bed!

Seems not. From now on I will only use a private language of my own, which has the amazing property of having no ambiguities, and describes each object perfectly in its individuality.

Ugls flughs drty, wopsk nuffgh op, stad nap man dodo cokomok, y to ypu mo nomgyfthuw.

 

[mjs]

Sorry if this has been discussed before

It's just a label... Most labels are fairly random and don't carry much meaning beyond what they accumulate later. Don't let it throw you.

mjs