People Preferring Analog

[Lionel1972]

Actually, stereo (or stereophonic) doesn't mean two, it means more than one.


Steve.

But I don't have more than 2 ears. ;-)

 

[Aristophanes]

But I don't have more than 2 ears. ;-)

Actually, you do.

Low level bass sounds are not entirely interpreted through the ear canal. The mind still "hears" them as aural.

 

[fotch]

...Space is soooooo cheap now. We'll spend inordinate amounts of money on photo gear and the whine about a $150 hard drive that holds over 1 trillion bytes...really?.........

More than that. You need to back up the back up and then back up. So more like $500 plus the time*, which is priceless.

*Note! While the backup can run by itself, you still have to manage the whole affair.

 

[clayne]

Not really.

The key difference between analog and digital is storage once the physically finite limits of the capture medium are achieved.

Both emulsion and silicon photosites are analog, possessing nearly identical capture capacities where both can outresolve their optical intermediary.

Wrong. Non linearity is one of the huge differences. Why do you keep conveniently leaving out beneficial signal compression?

 

[Aristophanes]

Wrong. Non linearity is one of the huge differences. Why do you keep conveniently leaving out beneficial signal compression?

Because at a certain point it will become unnoticeable. Even analog has limits in the ability to read its signal completely (see reciprocity failure, colour balance, film grain, dust, fingerprints, etc.). Digital's discrete points are being whittled smaller and smaller through sampling, just as the case with film when all you could get at one point was ASA 25. Signal compression can be used to cut fidelity (cost to implement), so it was a tool limited by money, not a real desire to downgrade fidelity. The barrier for silicon sensors has been the bandwidth necessary to translate the density of data. No one at Sony or Nikon wants to keep throwing away photon data. From what I understand, the real limit is going to be optical resolution vs. the Nyquist limit. OTOH in 20 years a silicon sensor may have the capacity for separate ISO for every 20 pixel bins. These are simply things no emulsion could ever do.

Even with enormous prints trained eyes cannot tell the difference between analog and digital captures. At a certain point sampling and data compression cannot be differentiated from analog by the human senses. Many would argue we are already there.

I still hate Photoshop with a passion. I still like having a mini-lab process my stuff far more than I like spending time in front of a PC. I just posted 2 to the Gallery from some rolls I had done at Precision Camera (hood stuff from them BTW...big endorsement). I am here because I like the way analog film "bakes in" the formula for an exposure with unique characteristics. It's a discipline I enjoy.

 

[clayne]

When I say signal compression I am not talking about file conpression whatsoever. Im talking about non-linear saturation as a form of analog response. Can talk about the virtues of digital all day but this is a big one it does not have.

Results speak and there are many years of analog results which back up the medium.

 

[Diapositivo]

I wonder if this Sibelius concerto was recorded on analog master tape.

The recording is dated 1983, and it is a digital recording (EMI Digital CDC 7 47110 2).

My impression is that quality of recording and quality of reproduction are somehow not reciprocally limiting, like lens quality - negative quality - print quality. I mean: a better hi-fi set will sound better whatever the recording. There is no "wall", no recording quality that nullifies the different qualities of two sets.

Personally I find that digital - analogue in recording is only part of the story. A good sound engineer is clearly felt, when listening to complex signals at least (such as symphonic or opera). The analogue tapes used for recording (big tapes at great speed) since the seventies were very, very good in any case and overall differences in hi-fi setup in my opinion are more important than differences in recording quality by several orders of magnitudes, so to speak.

Digital made sound "engineering" probably easier, but recording fidelity in itself I don't think was improved that much by the digital revolution. Yes one can detect a slightly better quality between an analogue CD and a digital CD, but this is much less important than differences between hi-fi sets.

Fabrizio

 

[Aristophanes]

When I say signal compression I am not talking about file conpression whatsoever. Im talking about non-linear saturation as a form of analog response. Can talk about the virtues of digital all day but this is a big one it does not have.

Results speak and there are many years of analog results which back up the medium.

Two means to the same end. The same logarithmic virtues of film (closer to how our eye naturally works) constrain it elsewhere, notably reciprocity failure and an awful shyness of the dark end of any tonal range. Digital can make up the difference with superior ISO control and higher bit depth. Not there yet on the left side of curve, but getting there.

Film is a fantastic medium with a terrific history and elements retaining more elements of craftsmanship than push-button digital. That does not make it discernibly superior to what is on the market now. Non-linear is not necessarily superior. Astrophotography, low-light photography and macro work have come alive because of linearity.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Here we go again Aristophanes. Exactly what form of digital capture are you referring to as indistinguishable from what film can do. I don't know anyone making a digital back which can compete with 4x5 film let alone 8x10. That line of BS has been gone over way too many times to
bother with here, Betterlight included. Convenience is one thing, optimum image quality on a large
scale something else. But geeks are in their own little world and can prove anything with a calculator
and saltshaker full of pixels, even if the result looks like oatmeal mush up on the wall.

 

[Aristophanes]

Here we go again Aristophanes. Exactly what form of digital capture are you referring to as indistinguishable from what film can do. I don't know anyone making a digital back which can compete with 4x5 film let alone 8x10. That line of BS has been gone over way too many times to
bother with here, Betterlight included. Convenience is one thing, optimum image quality on a large
scale something else. But geeks are in their own little world and can prove anything with a calculator
and saltshaker full of pixels, even if the result looks like oatmeal mush up on the wall.

Show us the "oatmeal mush" from digital photos on a major gallery wall. Name the gallery. Name the artist.

There are currently silicon lin-log capture instruments that are used in technical and astro products. Non-linear CMOS processors are also designed and used in specific applications. Things people say here are exclusive to emulsion film turn out not to be.

That means that analog film needs to compete on other metrics than losing an arms race to sensors.

Last time I was in a pro print shop the device of choice used to turn 4x5/8x10 negs into full length prints was a Hasselbald scanner. When I was in Tikal years ago there was a National Geographic team shooting the ruins using artificial lighting and view cameras. The film was processed and then all scanned for phenomenal prints and glossy magazine distribution of the highest quality. Almost all major motion picture cinema goes through a digital intermediate. Are all these "oatmeal mush"? Your reference point seems to be the 3MP P&S from an off-brand circa 2003.

In relation to the OP, film competes not on quality, but on nostalgia and some artificial "spiritual" thingy. I am a cold hard economic realist. Film needs new customers using new equipment to keep analog viable to stabilize market demand and prevent a complete loss. What does not work is people trying to live vicariously in grandpa's era using product from grandpa's closet. You're living in the past rehashing arguments long since lost while film and film product demand withers away to nothing because it is not being promoted using the right tools or ideas.

That's the problem with this article: it thinks that analog is preserved by using old tech, not realizing that new analog products are necessary to keep any analog production going at all. It's the worst of consumerism because it completely uses the resource to exhaustion and leaves no economic space for it to be renewed.

 

[zsas]

Terms of serv....

"-no digital vs. traditional threads in general forums"

 

[zsas]

Colin - thanks for posting, nice to see diversity in the world, I am happy to read about happy people! Andy

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Who cares about all the rude off base comments on what was supposed to be.... Someone had a preference on how they like to work, that was all..... Its amazing that many people decided to shoot down that preference and the explaination behind it.... No one should have to justify that to anyone but themselves.. Oh well, what a shame about all the posturing

 

[Toffle]

Who cares about all the rude off base comments on what was supposed to be.... Someone had a preference on how they like to work, that was all..... Its amazing that many people decided to shoot down that preference and the explaination behind it.... No one should have to justify that to anyone but themselves.. Oh well, what a shame about all the posturing

Thank you, Andrew. You are a class act.

 

[Colin Corneau]

All this gives rise to an interesting question. If the market hadn't interrupted, where would analog technology be today and in the future if the full weight of research and development had been applied to it? There have been steady advances to be sure, but nothing like it could have been. What do you think?

I think that alternate future would have been merely perfecting an existing line -- digital/computing technology/etc is a whole other 'line'...think of it like an evolutionary line or a species distinction.

I think there's only so far you can go along any line -- you can transfer ink to paper ever more efficiently and quickly, but in the end you're still transferring ink to paper.

Compare TMY-2 to a 400 speed film 3 or 3 generations ago...it's astounding, really. Seems to me the changes in that (fascinating) alternate universe would have been like that.

 

[Colin Corneau]

...film competes not on quality, but on nostalgia and some artificial "spiritual" thingy....What does not work is people trying to live vicariously in grandpa's era using product from grandpa's closet. You're living in the past rehashing arguments long since lost while film and film product demand withers away to nothing because it is not being promoted using the right tools or ideas.

Why on earth are you here?

 

[Aristophanes]

Why on earth are you here?

Voice of reason

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I understand the value of digital capture in astrophotography. Telescopes need remote control, often from hundreds or thousands of miles away. Multiple scope arrays are used for synchronized images.
There are ways of supercooling the sensors, etc. But once you start needing lenses and mirrors that add up to hundreds of tons, I don't think
we're talking about conventional photography. That's more than I can carry in my bag. I don't think a billion dollar "tripod" counts either. And while I enjoy NGS, their images are generally schmuk and they're just
about the last folks I'd look to in terms of a quality standard. And I'd sure
hate to see anything that Aristophanes considers a real darkroom. Mine
ain't all that fancy, but people around here with two or three million dollar
digital setups can't do what I do way more efficiently and way sharper too. I know some folks with some very serious industrial gear that have a
minimum 40K setup charge per image that do remarkable digital printing
(yeah, 40K not $40), but they prefer to work with 8X10 FILM originals.
So I really don't know when it's appropriate to ignore a mosquito on a forum like this one or to reach for the repellant. I thought that at least on
APUG one could get away from the endless techie propaganda. Film has
almost a two hundred year head start on R&D, so ain't exactly something primitive.

 

[Aristophanes]

Well, I understand the value of digital capture in astrophotography. Telescopes need remote control, often from hundreds or thousands of miles away. Multiple scope arrays are used for synchronized images.
There are ways of supercooling the sensors, etc. But once you start needing lenses and mirrors that add up to hundreds of tons, I don't think
we're talking about conventional photography. That's more than I can carry in my bag. I don't think a billion dollar "tripod" counts either. And while I enjoy NGS, their images are generally schmuk and they're just
about the last folks I'd look to in terms of a quality standard. And I'd sure
hate to see anything that Aristophanes considers a real darkroom. Mine
ain't all that fancy, but people around here with two or three million dollar
digital setups can't do what I do way more efficiently and way sharper too. I know some folks with some very serious industrial gear that have a
minimum 40K setup charge per image that do remarkable digital printing
(yeah, 40K not $40), but they prefer to work with 8X10 FILM originals.
So I really don't know when it's appropriate to ignore a mosquito on a forum like this one or to reach for the repellant. I thought that at least on
APUG one could get away from the endless techie propaganda. Film has
almost a two hundred year head start on R&D, so ain't exactly something primitive.

If anything, film and cameras have been the relentless "techie" propaganda machine in the history of all things tech, especially in the hands of Joe Consumer. Only autos might vie for that crown, one around long before digital processing. Kodak and Fuji have the all-time record as "techie" propaganda masters. It is film that had the 200 year propaganda head start. You're raging against yourself.

I never said that film is primitive. It went to the Moon, didn't it? What I did say, was that assumptions about what film is and digital is not expressed in this thread are fundamentally wrong. Film's once prodigious technical edge is eroding and will soon be non-existent. There are even non-linear sensors in the works, silicon with DR greater than film, zone ISO control, and so on.

And those sensors are still considered analog devices. And that tech works its way down into what people will hold in their hands.

What's the place for analog photography in all this? Is it using stuff from closets and eBay using freezers full of nostalgia? Or is someone going to make new product for a niche process to keep the coating machines rolling? A bunch of hipsters and 8x10 shooters are not a large enough market and distract from the core issue of production volume.

 

[richard ide]

" A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum"

 

[richard ide]

Breaking News!!
This Just in. Batman caught Robin selling guano outside the Batcave.

And this has as much relevance as some of the spouting in this and another infamous thread.

 

[SuzanneR]

Good grief... the whole digital vs. analog thing was put to bed here (in the soap box) long ago, it's a tedious and tired back and forth of nothing. The OP pointed to an interesting article about folks from different areas preferring a to work with analog tools, typewriters and such... so let's get back to the topic at hand.

 

[MDR]

Are we apuggers going mad?

Since Kodak's financial troubles it seems that apug has split in two camps the "ostrichs" and the "prophets of doom" and as soon as the words analogue,digital or financial problems appear in a thread the two camps start to fight each other. APUG is the place to discuss analogue photography and to cherish the wonders of gelatine or paper/glass based analogue captures devices. And those posts constantly declaring the end of film photography or Kodak feel somewhat wrong to me. Come on people let's enjoy und use film and analogue photography as long as we can. If those musicians on the Titanic were able to play until they were drowning, we analogue users should support film and maybe be a little blind to the slow death of our favourite photographic medium.

Dominik

 

[michaelbsc]

Since Kodak's financial troubles it seems that apug has split in two camps the "ostrichs" and the "prophets of doom" .....

I, for one, would like to publicly apologize for my contribution to the breakdown.

In the beginning I thought we'd engage in reasonable discussion. Duh!

I do think the conversation has merit, but maybe the nerves are just too raw here.

MB

 

[stavrosk]

What does not work is people trying to live vicariously in grandpa's era using product from grandpa's closet.

If grandpa's products do not blow the highlights, give nicer colours and are kept in a medium that is proven to last in time as opposed to unsure hard drives then what is wrong with using them?

What does not work is people trying to adopt vicariously what the companies are trying to sell them, since a new digital camera is always coming around and you get to spend and spend while my film camera can be 20 years old with no problems at all.