Its not really about the size of it, but the speed (15fps).
What is the audio equivalent to ultra large format photography? 1" tape?
I am all for them using film and give them credit for that. Sadly though I also see them buying beautiful old cameras and butchering them when they could find many other ways to create "hipster" images.
Feet per second? Now that is quality!Its not really about the size of it, but the speed (15fps).
Feet per second? Now that is quality!
I haven't seen that. My stepson's Canon AE-1 is all original. What exactly are they doing to the cameras?
In addition to the no-longer-being-made reason (HIE), I do frequently buy short-dated or even slightly expired film for the cost. Recently B&H has had 35mm/36exp rolls of Velvia and Provia slightly expired for $5-$7 a roll. Compared to its usual selling price, that’s a huge discount, and all the rolls worked perfectly.
Is it just for loading? You could try "respooling" it. Have a roll around the club reusing some old Kodacolor backing paper and Fomapan film that a member lost as it sprung off the reel and was exposed. Good enough for training loading. Masking tape works ok enough to emulate the one at the beginning of the roll.Here’s a twist: I teach beginning darkroom workshops. For learning to load developing reels, each student gets a “practice roll”, i.e., an old expired roll to use for practice in the light. For 35mm, no problem so far. We have bags of old film scoured from numerous sources at no cost. However, 120 rolls are precious. I used up my own stock and am now begging for rolls from whoever. I went to the local used photo store (who supports my workshops because it adds to his sales of analog materials) and asked him for some expired film. No, he won’t give it to me because he CAN SELL IT!
Its not really about the size of it, but the speed (15fps).
What is the audio equivalent to ultra large format photography? 1" tape?
Audiophiles can get hung up on the quality of the source.
This is the answer. For those of us who were born before 1990ish, it's easy to think perfection is the goal. Perfection has long been the sign of the skilled hand. However, in today's world, perfection is the sign of computers and automation. Perfection is everywhere. Perfection is cheap and it's boring. It's the hallmark of the unskilled laborer, not the skilled master. To people who grew up after the digital revolution, there is a decided lack of human touch on everyday existence.
When photography first came out, it was accused of killing painting. It made no sense to pay a highly skilled painter to paint your portrait when a photographer could do it more quickly, cheaply, and accurately. But painting didn't die. It evolved beyond realism. Abstraction took over. Expressionism reigned. Surrealism flourished. Photography didn't kill painting; it freed it from the bonds of everyday experience and placed it on an ethereal plane, free to find it's own meaning of existence.
And that's what digital has done to film. Making a perfect photograph with film still takes a lot of skill, but it will never look as good, be as cheap, or be as quick as a digital photo (remember we're still in the infancy of digital sensor technology). As such, the whole reason for shooting film for most people who grew up after the digital revolution, is to "show the artist's hand", as the saying goes. The whole point of it is to show off the flaws. It's to reinforce the idea that it was made by a human, for humans, and in celebration of the human condition (flaws and all). Perfection is no longer a goal, or even a desirable trait. Film is no longer tied down by the expectation reality. The flawed nature of expired film mirrors the human experience. The flaws of expired film are a metaphor for ourselves. It's unrealized potential at it's finest.
So the real question is, why shoot film over digital if what you want is reliable and repeatable results?
I take your point but it isn't so simple. A lot of the people shooting outdated film aren't doing it on beat up Spotmatic or P&S, but new Leicas and RB67s. There's even a YouTube channel with Summicrons and Hasselblads aplenty, where grossly under-exposed, colour shifted, grainy as hell shots are held up as masterworks. I don't recall many M3 owners scouring the lucky dip film box back in the day.
Good sound begins at the source, and precious few recordings meet the reference standard set by the most demanding of listeners.
That's my point. The purity of the medium taking precedence over whatever content the medium is carrying.
This is the answer. For those of us who were born before 1990ish, it's easy to think perfection is the goal. Perfection has long been the sign of the skilled hand. However, in today's world, perfection is the sign of computers and automation. Perfection is everywhere. Perfection is cheap and it's boring. It's the hallmark of the unskilled laborer, not the skilled master. To people who grew up after the digital revolution, there is a decided lack of human touch on everyday existence.
When photography first came out, it was accused of killing painting. It made no sense to pay a highly skilled painter to paint your portrait when a photographer could do it more quickly, cheaply, and accurately. But painting didn't die. It evolved beyond realism. Abstraction took over. Expressionism reigned. Surrealism flourished. Photography didn't kill painting; it freed it from the bonds of everyday experience and placed it on an ethereal plane, free to find it's own meaning of existence.
And that's what digital has done to film. Making a perfect photograph with film still takes a lot of skill, but it will never look as good, be as cheap, or be as quick as a digital photo (remember we're still in the infancy of digital sensor technology). As such, the whole reason for shooting film for most people who grew up after the digital revolution, is to "show the artist's hand", as the saying goes. The whole point of it is to show off the flaws. It's to reinforce the idea that it was made by a human, for humans, and in celebration of the human condition (flaws and all). Perfection is no longer a goal, or even a desirable trait. Film is no longer tied down by the expectation reality. The flawed nature of expired film mirrors the human experience. The flaws of expired film are a metaphor for ourselves. It's unrealized potential at it's finest.
So the real question is, why shoot film over digital if what you want is reliable and repeatable results?
"soul numbing, plasticy perfection".
Sure. You don't even need to give me credit either, unless you want to. I didn't invent any of those ideas.Perfect answer. It’s as if peeps here dont realize digital exists. Can I quote this elsewhere giving u credit?
Would you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just to hear how bad most popular recordings sound?
And for the record, 24 bit 192kHz with some high quality converters (like a Crane Song) is superior to the best tape machines out there (like a Studer).
So a good tape machine will often sound more pleasing to the ear, but be less faithful to the original sound.
(which is below that of vinyl, but at 24 bits, it supercedes vinyl).
So if you listen to the same song on digital, tape, and on vinyl, you're actually listening to three very different songs.
And a digital remaster sounds nothing like the original.
nothing is like the original, whether it is a digital remastered sound or visual image. everything is pretty much a reflection or shadow and an interpretation, does it really matter ? when someone sees live music in a concert whether it is the henry rollins band, fugazi, or yo yo ma, do one really expect these musicians/artists to sound like they did on their overly engineered studio album ? probably not because the studio engineers interpret what was played and do the equivilant of photoshop to the sound before it is put on whatever medium it is being stored on.
whether this is good or bad is also up for interpretation.
thanks Platoas if we may look for a moment outside the cave into the true light......
Why is that.?Hence my comment concerning popular studio recordings. Furthermore, I do not consider amplified acts to be truly "live" in the sense that unamplified acoustic performances are.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?