How much of an analog purist are you?

[Loose Gravel]

I know this is Analog Photography. I love film and conventional printing, but I'm not weird about it. If I thought digital made a better picture, I'd consider switching. I'm not a purist.

I use a computer in my work, altho I design analog electronics. I listen to CDs and MP3s because they are convenient, but I still have a turntable. I do have only analog watches (not just the face, but the second hand moves smoothly, like time). I use a digital cell phone because analog doesn't work as many places. My car has a bunch of micros in it. My darkroom timer is digital. (You realize, some people say time is digital in nature?) My woodshop is analog and so is my bicycle. The food I eat is analog. My pets are analog. My light meter is digital. My shutters are analog. The government tells me my TV will be digital. My radio is analog.

So, how much has digital invaded your life?

 

[Andy K]

Even if I thought digital made a better picture I wouldn't switch. There's no skill or satisfaction in getting a computer to do everything for you. My light meter is analogue, as are my cameras. I don't have a single camera which requires batteries for anything other than metering. My DR timer is analogue.
As for digital in other areas... I listen to shortwave radio quite a lot. I have a mobile phone, but rarely use it. I have CDs but prefer my turntable and vinyl, I also have a collection of 78s which I play on a wind-up gramophone.
My TV signal is going digital but for now I still watch the analogue signal because the digital signal is total crap and when it gets 'atmospherics' it pixellates, freezes and loses sound, whereas the analogue signal might get a little 'snow' in the picture but it's still watchable and doesn't lose sound.
I wear an analogue watch, when I can be bothered to wear a watch. I cycle rather than use my car for journeys of 15 miles or less. I also walk a lot. I prefer using cash to plastic.

My only real concession to the digital age is this Infernal Machine I am sat in front of now.

 

[Dave Parker]

I don't think it is possible to not have some sort of digital invade our lives now a days, I have a DVD, I have CD, and I have a Digital Satelite....My car has a computer that runs it as does the heating system in my house, the dishwasher has a computer that does all the various functions....I have an 11 computer network system between the house and the shop, but when it comes to photography, I still shoot film either negative or positive, if I feel an inclination to display on the computer I scan them and I still feel there is a difference between photography and imageology, as I said, I don't think it is possible to NOT have digital in our lives now a days, we just make different choices on what is digital and what is analog...

Dave

 

[Aggie]

I find digital quite useful. In fact I lug that darn camera around with me most times. Reason.... If hubby is along it keeps him amused. If son is along it keeps him amused. If a stranger comes up, I snap a quick shot and hand the camera to them, and they are amused and leave me alone. I think everyone should have a digigizmo for those reasons.

 

[resummerfield]

Digital seems to have crept into our lives unannounced, and for the most part we’ve accepted it. Everyone has a computer and is online (or we wouldn’t be reading this). Even my gas cook stove has a digital chip in it. But in those cases where I can choose, I avoid the “D” word.

I’ve never touched digital photography in any form; I don’t even have a scanner. But I’ll eventually get one, if only to post my analogue work online.

Very confusing times.

 

[Wayne]

I use digital for all my digital images, and a darkroom or Polaroid for all my photography. I have only used digital to captur items I want to sell on ebay, or to document item for work. The images lack meaning to me. I'm not going to comment on digital in other areas in my life because its irrelevant to photography and will quickly land this topic in the S*** box.

 

[Whiteymorange]

Purity is over rated. Use the tool that gets the job done the way you want it done. If it's film, fine. If it's digital, go for it. Computers don't do the work for you, they're just tools - sometimes good tools, sometimes the wrong choice. I shoot film because I like it. If I worked on a deadline for commercial printing and the end result was going to digitized anyway (most public images we see - no matter what the source, have been digitized for printing) I might just shoot digital.

That doesn't mean I'd stop shooting film.

True luddites are the ones smashing the machines because they think the machines are the problem. Machines aren't the problem, it's the idiots with the machines. I have to keep telling myself, every time I hear some fool yelling into his phone in the supermarket, asking his wife whether he should buy the green beans or not, that he would be just as much a fool without the phone.

 

[eric]

Man I am so analog that I log into Apug, open a forum, print it out, and then read it! Yah man, I print it on a a mimeograph machine. I can't get the darn blue stains off my hands

No, really, I carry my digital all the time. I want to get another one, cheapo one, like the kid's one they sell at Target just for grab shots and they are great for posting pix for my blog so my family and friends can see what a dork I am. Ever see that 640x480 website? That's all I really need for web posting. And besides, I have the Lomo script for GIMP that converts my shots so they have that crappy Lomo look to it.

 

[mark]

Outside of photography I tend to avoid most things digital except for my alarm clock, and DVD player and computer. Other digital stuff has been forced on me but I have no problem with it.

Now with photography-
I have no need for a digital camera of any kind. I do print some color on digital medai but that is because it is silly easy to do. Real prints are done by a wet lab.

 

[JHannon]

True luddites are the ones smashing the machines because they think the machines are the problem. Machines aren't the problem, it's the idiots with the machines. I have to keep telling myself, every time I hear some fool yelling into his phone in the supermarket, asking his wife whether he should buy the green beans or not, that he would be just as much a fool without the phone.

LOL Whitey... I agree.

I use whatever works for me. I have tried digital photography but something is lost.... just not interested... I only use it for a quick snapshot for Ebay.

Now radios, I use an old 1930's philco "tombstone" that I restored. Pulls in more stations than the computerized tuners...

Regards,
John

 

[Dave Parker]

Well, if we really want to discuss to analog vs. digital, tell me a new digital ampllifier sounds better then a pair of 35 watt Mark Levinson Tube amps!!!

Dave

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think the real analog purists aren't likely to be on this forum to answer. I do know such people who aren't really comfortable with a computer or if they've bowed to the word processor haven't quite figured out e-mail, let alone the Web.

I use a digital camera (Coolpix 990) mainly for archiving documents. It's way faster than a scanner, and it's much easier to deal with the output than with microfilm, which I used to use for research purposes. I also use it for photographing things I plan to sell online, and I'll occasionally use it for something where a digital file is adequate, like some installation photos I did recently of a friend's exhibition, or to digitize a LF neg or transparency for the web or even for a small offset reproduction, like a postcard. For all these uses, this "old" 3.3 Mpix camera is sufficient. Eventually, I'll probably get a digital body for bird photography. The Canon 5D is coming close to something I'd buy in terms of function, resolution and cost. I don't own any sort of photo-quality printer, but I'll order a LightJet/Chromira print occasionally or a Frontier for something small.

 

[BradS]

I've nothing against digital cameras nor those who choose to make use of them. I just don't find it very satisfying to do photography with a digital camera. The whole process, to me, lacks soul. My problem - not the camera's.

The official, scientific definition of time is quantized and thus, digital in nature.

And back around the turn of the century a couple of relatively famous scientists showed the light itself exhibits certain behaviours that suggest that it is quantized. In a sense, everything is quantized (i.e. digital) if you look at it at asmall enough scale.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I'm mildly considering a low end digital camcorder with still feature. Figure it'll get hooked up to a PDA. But then it'll be just quick snapshots to remind me of things.

 

[Charles Webb]

As I grow older and am daily less phisycal fit, I find that my beloved big boxes are more work than I am really able to do. The thought of digital is getting more and more attractive to me. I made some people pictures awhile back, and was amazed with the flesh tones etc. When I gave the camera back to the owner, he asked "what do you think?" What else could I say but that they were acceptable."well are you ready to buy now? along with I bettcha can't do that with one of those ancient cameras of yours" I just grinned and said when they get up to a hundred pixels or so I'll look at them again. And I just might! My wife has a Nikon 5800 and she loves it, however I am not smart enough to use it! And she wont let me any way!

Waugh, my order of film from J & C was just delivered! That is like very quick!

 

[jovo]

Much as I hate to admit it, sometimes I can feel the power of the dark side pulling me in it's insidious direction. When I've scanned a negative to see more quickly what it'll look like as a print, I use basic levels and curves to get a decent idea of what's there. Then...in the darkroom...the frustration of not being able to get those same, easy results without a struggle makes photoshop, a siren song. Still....when I've succeeded (which is more often than not) I feel that much more rewarded for having committed to the task traditionally, and a little ashamed of how tempted I was to be a slut for the software.

 

[gandolfi]

I am not a purist, I think.
I use PS as a presentation tool. I also use it when I make folders/brochures for my school or postcards for my self. Why have others to do what you can do better your self?
I use a scanner. For my negatives - mostly for a cheap and quick way of doing "contact sheets" - my eyes are failing me, so the fact that I can enlarge in the scan is appealing..

how ever: I dont own a digital camera. and I will NEVER get one for serious work!
for me digital pictures has two purposes (the ones I use it for, and when; I take the 1.2(!!)m "camera" that the school has).
1: for documenting. (mostly I use it to take snapshote of the students at partyes and such, or small images for use in a brochure..)
2: if my originals are too big to be scanned (web purpose)..
but I guess the "2" is the same as nr "1".....

so to me digital is fun'n games. nothing more.
I NEED a negative!

 

[roteague]

I've nothing against digital cameras nor those who choose to make use of them. I just don't find it very satisfying to do photography with a digital camera. The whole process, to me, lacks soul. My problem - not the camera's.

I feel the same way, but for me there is still the issue of image quality. Even the 16MP Cannon Ds MkII can't compete with the level of sharpness that Fuji Velvia is capable of resolving, much less color depth. There just isn't anything that can beat looking at a bunch of transpariences laid out on a light table.

 

[Lee L]

Well, if we really want to discuss to analog vs. digital, tell me a new digital ampllifier sounds better then a pair of 35 watt Mark Levinson Tube amps!!!

Dave

OK.

Dave, a new digital ampllifier sounds better then a pair of 35 watt Mark Levinson Tube amps!!!

Now you can go out and buy an new 500wpc Krell and send me the Levinsons to dispose of in a humane fashion. I'll need to listen for a while, maybe a couple of decades, to confirm my statement.

Lee

 

[jovo]

a pair of 35 watt Mark Levinson Tube amps!!!

Dave

mmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[blansky]

I have nothing against digital. It's just that to me, the photography part aint there yet.

When it is, I may reconsider.


MIchael

 

[doughowk]

Fifteen years ago when I first started programming computers, I thought the computer/digital world was a revolutionary force for much needed change. I have been re-assessing my earlier enthusiasm. The paperless revolution was a myth; a computerized work space wastes more time than the earlier paper-pushers in any bureaucracy; and Gates' desktop software is a nightmare of inefficiency. There are some benefits such as the internet; but many other forms of inter-connectivity (eg, cell-phones) are a detrimental infringement of a peaceful life. I am becoming more of a traditionalist as concerns personal lifestyle.

 

[eric]

and Gates' desktop software is a nightmare of inefficiency. There are some benefits such as the internet; but many other forms of inter-connectivity (eg, cell-phones) are a detrimental infringement of a peaceful life. I am becoming more of a traditionalist as concerns personal lifestyle.

Great statements!!!
I used to have a Palm Pilot (2 of 'em), and a Sony something. I gave up the electronics and did something absurb and I never looked back. I got a Day Runner and a pen. What a concept! Never needs batteries, I can write something in it instantly. Well, the pen thing I'm fond of. I like good pens. My usual writing pen is an Rapidograph 00. My darn Palm Pilot keep on needing batteries or died when I needed the most. My cell phone dies when I need it the most. My DVD's skip just at the best part of the movies. Dang man

 

[jovo]

many other forms of inter-connectivity (eg, cell-phones) are a detrimental infringement of a peaceful life.

...and just try getting a cell phone that only makes calls, forget text messages, dvd's. photos, etc. etc.

OTOH...I'm still waiting for Woody Allen's prophesied 'orgasmitron'...THERE!S a useful invention!!!

 

[joeyk49]

Hi. I'm Joe.....and I own a digital camera...<head lowered>...

The paradox of digital, for me, is that its easier to take acceptable snapshots with the digital camera, but I'm not really happy with the end product. The family likes all of the relatively well lit photos of Aunt Bessie that can be distributed before the family get together is over. But, they're not really GOOD photographs; I'M not happy!

I have one, and only one, halfway decent photo of my grandmother. I have dozens of pics, mind you, but only one good shot. It was taken with my Yashica 124G and Fuji NPH film. Its nothing special; just an image of her, relaxing in a chair, working on a Bible search-a-word puzzle book. But the relaxed facial expression and the warmth of the room, pretty faithfully rendered by our friends at Fuji, just speaks to me. I just don't get the FEEL from digital...and I don't know why.

I enjoy the Stones on digital. But I really feel good, when I'm playing them on my turntable; scrathces and all. Chicago's 25 or 6 to 4 is just better on vinyl...it just is! And I will never own a digital recording of Deep Purple's Machine Head! When the record wears out, I stop listening!

So, for me, its an emotional connection with my past. I don't find it simpler, or more efficient or effective, or anything, just better. I suppose our children will have no such issues with their photography/art/music/youfillintheblank...because they will be living and remembering their era (and with any luck, a piece of ours), which really won't have that much analog to speak of...Too bad for them. But, alas, our grandparents probably said the same about us.

I'll continue to shoot digital for practicality, but will always shoot analog because/for my emotional connection to photography...

Does any of this make sense?????????