The world of photography has changed, but why should we?

[JBrunner]

Is it possible, for a price of course, to insert a disk in one machine and a one hundred or x foot roll of film in another and have an x foot roll of film to use and save at one's desiring?

Serious question, not sarcasm.
One reason I asked, was I was speaking to a fellow who worked in computer development, how does one transfer a disk to tape.

He had no idea and was not sure if it could be done.
I said we watch digital movies on analog TVs so there must be a way, and he said, that he would imagine but had no idea how.

Bobby

I'm not quite sure I understand. Your earlier post regarded images, and the processes I outlined are all methods that print digital images to analog media. Getting a disk from your film or negatives from a photo finisher or lab is another example. Disk to tape is simple. It's done both directions in video post facilities every day. Images in digital cameras are created as electronic analog signals, and only after they are organized and converted in the camera do they become digital (roughly speaking) The analog/digi gate way swings both ways, more or less, with current technology. As I said, at this point, I'm not getting it.:confused:
Are you talking about information, or the transmutation of matter?

 

[BobbyR]

I'm not quite sure I understand. Your earlier post regarded images, and the processes I outlined are all methods that print digital images to analog media. Getting a disk from your film or negatives from a photo finisher or lab is another example. Disk to tape is simple. It's done both directions in video post facilities every day. Images in digital cameras are created as electronic analog signals, and only after they are organized and converted in the camera do they become digital (roughly speaking) The analog/digi gate way swings both ways, more or less, with current technology. As I said, at this point, I'm not getting it.:confused:
Are you talking about information, or the transmutation of matter?

I gave the example because I would like to know if it is really that simple to take a disk and put it in a machine and out the other end comes x feet or a 36 exposure roll of slide, or print, film that one can take home a put in the freezer till needed.

I gave the example, because if a computer expert did not know if digital video can be transferred to analog tape, is it really that easy to transfer digital photographs to analog film.

Not doubting you just making sure I understood what you were saying.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

There's computer experts and there's computer experts. Sounds like your friend is the former. I am an expert programmer. Doesn't mean I know bubkus about hard drives and network configuration. It is quite easy to go digital to analog, or analog to digital, be it on film, video, audio, or what have you.

 

[mabman]

I gave the example because I would like to know if it is really that simple to take a disk and put it in a machine and out the other end comes x feet or a 36 exposure roll of slide, or print, film that one can take home a put in the freezer till needed.

I gave the example, because if a computer expert did not know if digital video can be transferred to analog tape, is it really that easy to transfer digital photographs to analog film.

Not doubting you just making sure I understood what you were saying.

As I understand it that's exactly what Hollywood movie studios have been doing for some time, until such time as all movie theatres have digital projectors - directors who shoot digitally get their films edited and then transferred onto positive film stock for projection. No idea of the mechanics of this, however, and not sure how common it is anymore.

 

[JBrunner]

As I understand it that's exactly what Hollywood movie studios have been doing for some time, until such time as all movie theatres have digital projectors - directors who shoot digitally get their films edited and then transferred onto positive film stock for projection. No idea of the mechanics of this, however, and not sure how common it is anymore.

Very few theatrical releases are shot digitally. The vast majority, at least 99%, are still originated on film. Parts of the post process are now done electronically, mostly low resolution editing, and then the decisions are moved to the film post, so there isn't a bunch of cutting and splicing to edit a film anymore. Effects intensive movies may be electronically posted at full resolution, for obvious reasons.

 

[davetravis]

What do you think?

Apug, Hybridphoto, Photocentric, Greatcapture...
Looks like you're building a net based photo-info empire!
Good luck, and much profit!
BTW, I'm 100% analog making Ilfochromes...room for me on your PC?
DT

 

[Maris]

Sean, the world of photography has not changed. It can't change without ceasing to be photography and becoming something else that honestly needs to be called by another name.

The central fact of photography is that light hits a sensitive surface and causes marks where it hits. If the light that does the hitting is arranged (by a lens, for example) to be an image the bunch of marks that result is a picture of that image.

That's what the word photography was specifically invented to mean.

What has changed is the world. Now "photography" has been misappropriated to mean virtually any opto/mechano/electric process capable of turning out realistic looking pictures. Just because nearly every body says it doesn't make it so.

If you want to stand against this vulgar malapropism I will stand with you. We, all of us, can take photography back from its present derogation.

The French did it with Champagne after a hundred years of any fizzy white wine being labeled champagne all over the world. Even the Chinese publicly crush fake Rolex watches. We should be similarly merciless about fake photographs.

 

[Iskra 2]

"The world of photography has changed, but why should we?"

For me, today's world of photography is unbelievable. I can now afford the finest lenses, film cameras and darkroom equipment/supplies. Every new piece of digital equipment seems to improve my photo experiences.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

. . . . . the word photography . . . . . . . Just because nearly every body says it doesn't make it so. . . . . . . .

Actually, that is how language functions. Usage does drive meaning. Anyway, good luck in your quest.

I think the main issue I see comes from how people label prints. In my opinion, only the original frame of film is a true original . . . a photograph. Then the only exception is direct to print, like a Polaroid, though it is possible to load photographic paper into a film holder on a large format camera. Of course, some people claim that a Polaroid is not a photograph . . . go figure.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[Curt]

Why is everyone still talking about this Ad Hominem dude? I thought his work was pretty tired twenty years ago, and yet his name still pops up in these discussions. Go figure.

You called him or her an Ad Hominem dude, I called the action a troll dog and was deleted, Maybe this entire thread should be deleted.

Maybe the depth of conversation is best left to the level of how to clean one's boots or which lens to get for the latest 35mm purchase.


The world of photography has changed, but why should we? Reply to Thread.

Yes the world of photography has changed, everything changes in time. But why should we? We, meaning each of us, has to change to fit into the world we live in, some will resist, some will submit, others will blend and bend to the popular notion, others will simply give up.

In the movie "Green" by Robert Redford it was said that if everyone on the planet consumed like those in North America we would need five extra planets to supply the resources. There are a lot more issues involved than just what we want.

 

[Sean]

I feel like my thread has more than run it's course so am going to close it down. Thanks for the comments everyone, I appreciate a lot of what has been said in this thread, PM's & emails!

Sean