Announcement

Collapse

December's CHALLENGE

The topic to inspire your creative juices this month is BOXES

See more
See less

Digital and Analogue compared

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Digital and Analogue compared

    I'm quoting from what I read elsewhere (Photrio if you're interested):

    "Film is clean in the way that mountain air is clean. Digital in clean like the filter air in a hospital."

    Funny or what? Close to truth or what?
    Steve

    on flickr

  • #2
    Re: Digital and Analogue compared

    Originally posted by Ricoh View Post
    I'm quoting from what I read elsewhere (Photrio if you're interested):

    "Film is clean in the way that mountain air is clean. Digital in clean like the filter air in a hospital."

    Funny or what? Close to truth or what?
    Can't see any way in which the analogy helps TBH Steve. That there are differences can't be denied, but each has its "dirtiness" if you ask me. Film has more grain and lower accutance. Digital has a less noise (generally - but with a different pattern to it) and higher accutance. Some find digital too "sharp", some find analogue too soft. Choose your poison.
    Paul
    E-M1ii, Pen-F and too many lenses
    flickr
    Portfolio Site
    Instagram

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Digital and Analogue compared

      I don't see why it has to be a competition. It's a bit like asking what is the most useful, a spanner or a screwdriver?
      John

      "A hundredth of a second here, a hundredth of a second there � even if you put them end to end, they still only add up to one, two, perhaps three seconds, snatched from eternity." ~ Robert Doisneau

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Digital and Analogue compared

        It's a pointless argument, like oils vs watercolour. They're just different, that's all.
        Regards
        Richard

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Digital and Analogue compared

          Not funny nor close to truth, just meaningless. They're different technologies for 'fixing' an image created by a lens on a flat surface. Neither has much to do with our real perception of a 3D scene but the results can be pleasing
          Mike
          visit my Natural History Photos website:
          http://www.botanicdesign.co.uk/Natur...story/home.htm

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Digital and Analogue compared

            I think the argument is much more akin to that of recorded music. Where 'digital glare' and the artefacts of the process of digitalisation are horrible and very apparent to some whilst the convenience and new distribution (streaming, mobile use etc) are key factors for others who have less interest in the absolute quality of sound.

            So proponents of digital sound argue for convenience and 'apparent' long life of the CD vs tape or vinyl with it's reputation for noise and wear. Proponents of analogue focus on musical quality and the loss of 'natural sound or warmth'.

            In music the technology of the conversion electronics and the use of higher rates and bit depths have improved the quality of the process. At the same time once the sounds are digital they have been treated to artificial boosting (...the 'loudness wars' if you want to google) and the pernicious use of mp3 and other lower resolution, remastering and poor editing. Which are actually more of a sound quality issue that the digitalisation effects.

            So in both photography and music the process of digitalisation brings issues of actual quality. But also the ability to modify and change the file in ways that cause bitter division (eg HDR, photoshopping, piracy, etc etc) and seem to give bigger issues.

            In recorded music we have seen a resurgence of vinyl (some never left) and a return to film in photography (again some never left....). But not at a meaningful level or one which will change the long term direction (...yet).

            I would contend that not all change is progress and even when there are huge problems it doesn't seem possible to put the cork back in the bottle....
            Peter (Art Frames)

            You can see some of my things on Flickr

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Digital and Analogue compared

              The problem with recorded music is that virtually all recording equipment is digital these days. Those who prefer vinyl probably don't have very good CD players or listen to digitally compressed sources. Noise, scratches, end-of-side distortion and limited dynamic range are just a few of the disadvantages of vinyl. Poor quality CD players do indeed sound awful but that's not the fault of the format. Equally, poor original recording and mastering can result in unpleasant sound. If you listen to a live concert on BBC Radio3 via their 320K "HD Sound" internet feed, the sound is superb. Unless you listen to it on a phone or a computer!

              There was a thread recently on a film and darkroom forum started by a user who reckoned inkjet prints were inferior to darkroom, citing a long list of defects which simply illustrated that he didn't know how to make a decent inkjet print!
              Regards
              Richard

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Digital and Analogue compared

                Originally posted by Otto View Post
                Those who prefer vinyl probably don't have very good CD players or listen to digitally compressed sources. Noise, scratches, end-of-side distortion and limited dynamic range are just a few of the disadvantages of vinyl. Poor quality CD players do indeed sound awful but that's not the fault of the format.
                Sorry - if that was aimed at me - but I do have very good systems with high quality analogue and digital front ends and listen to music in many forms. I embrace both digital and analogue as I am one of those who spends more on sound equipment than cameras as it matters to me. But this is not the forum to debate sound systems.

                My point was that recorded music and photography share similar issues, and similar levels of hostility and lack of tolerance of difference. Perhaps I should have said it more clearly.
                Peter (Art Frames)

                You can see some of my things on Flickr

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Digital and Analogue compared

                  Sorry, it wasn't aimed at you - your point is well made and pertinent. My point was that a lot of critics (or proponents) of either are not necessarily comparing like with like.
                  Regards
                  Richard

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Digital and Analogue compared

                    Originally posted by art frames View Post
                    ...
                    So in both photography and music the process of digitalisation brings issues of actual quality. But also the ability to modify and change the file in ways that cause bitter division (eg HDR, photoshopping, piracy, etc etc) and seem to give bigger issues.
                    ...
                    I would contend that not all change is progress and even when there are huge problems it doesn't seem possible to put the cork back in the bottle....
                    Peter,
                    This isn't just a modern phenomena.
                    As I recall, the Stalinist era brought about a wealth of expertise in 'Photoshopping' analogue images.
                    Some may also say that Ansel Adams' printing techniques involved a comsiderable degree of PP - but now I'm straying into a minefield
                    Chris

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Digital and Analogue compared

                      It's not so much the digitisation of the analogue that's the issue, if it's done properly and then converted back to analogue there should be no discernible difference. It's what's often done to the digital copy that's the issue. To save space digital files are often compressed using a lossy system such as JPEG or MP3. That's where the issues arise because the result is a distortion of the original. That distortion is generally unpleasant to our human senses and gives rise to observations such as those in Steve's original post .
                      Regards
                      Richard

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Digital and Analogue compared

                        Originally posted by Gwyver View Post
                        Peter,
                        This isn't just a modern phenomena.
                        As I recall, the Stalinist era brought about a wealth of expertise in 'Photoshopping' analogue images.
                        Some may also say that Ansel Adams' printing techniques involved a comsiderable degree of PP - but now I'm straying into a minefield
                        Yes agreed.

                        Similarly, recordings on tape were edited, Recording engineers exploited multitrack systems, invented 'stereo' 'quad' 'dolby' and other technologies to improve tape and so the analogy can be extended to support your observation.

                        But aside from issues of propaganda and truth. I'd say good luck to those skilled at the work of creating sound or images in either domain. The system used should be seen as just the means to an end.
                        Peter (Art Frames)

                        You can see some of my things on Flickr

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Digital and Analogue compared

                          Post processing has been used in both film & digital worlds. My mothers first job (over 50 years ago) was photo retouching.


                          The big difference is these days digital retouching is so much easier - you don't need a skilled/qualified artist to do it. Many who do it, over do it - to the detriment of their results. Over doing compression is again another factor which can be very noticeable to some yet barely detectable to others.


                          Personally I prefer woodland fresh air to hospital fresh. The are probably many more organic pollutants present, but less like to have the pathogens. (Not much in the way of mountains in East Anglia!)
                          Mike
                          Compulsive photographic Dabbler.
                          Flickr

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Digital and Analogue compared

                            Film is a tool. Digital sensors are a tool. Artists and crafters decide which tool best supports the expression of their art and craft. Any debate over which is “better” simply begs the question of what “better” means.

                            We see the same unanswerable question frequently: ‘which camera/bag/lens should I take on my trip?” And the wiser amongst us ask “Well, what are you trying to accomplish?”
                            Instagram: TheBassmanBlog
                            My Blog: TheBassmanBlog.com
                            My Pictures: abbeyworks.smugmug.com

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Digital and Analogue compared

                              You are right squire.

                              I like both and use both, I hesitate to say interchangeably due to the nature of photochemistry and photoelectricity.
                              Steve

                              on flickr

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X