A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Traditional B&W Interest Group



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2  
Old February 27th 10, 04:58 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-02-16 7:18 , wrote:
Here in Silicon Valley we are a small group of traditional (analog)
B&W hobbyist. We welcome others of like mind to joint our discussion
group. Meeting once a month we share prints, ideas, problems,
questions, what if's, etc. This is not a typical camera club, no
ribbons, no cookies, no competition, no judges. If in the greater San
Jose area and interested contact me off list at


B&W is not "analog", it is film. A direct image recorded without
analogy. Once developed the film is an image.

Digital cameras are actually "analog" as that is the nature of the
capture device.


That's like trying to say a digital recording is really analog since the
microphone is.. And on digital capture, I don't think any part of the
capture is "analog". It's converted to ones and zeros before it leaves
the sensor.. At least with a microphone it is analog going through the
wires to then be digitized...


The digital part is storage. No different than a good
film scan.


The problem here Alan is you assume everyone is gonna scan film. Some of
us don't digitize any part of the process. I have a feeling these guys
aren't printing their B&W film on an inkjet.. Hence them calling
themselves analog photographers. They probably aren't interested in
talking about PS profiles and which computer printers come closest to a
-real- B&W silver print etc.



Just say "film". Clear 'nuff. Good luck.


Maybe so but saying analog explains they aren't digitizing their film..

Stephanie
  #3  
Old February 27th 10, 08:47 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group


wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-02-16 7:18 , wrote:
Here in Silicon Valley we are a small group of
traditional (analog)
B&W hobbyist. We welcome others of like mind to joint
our discussion
group. Meeting once a month we share prints, ideas,
problems,
questions, what if's, etc. This is not a typical camera
club, no
ribbons, no cookies, no competition, no judges. If in
the greater San
Jose area and interested contact me off list at


B&W is not "analog", it is film. A direct image recorded
without analogy. Once developed the film is an image.

Digital cameras are actually "analog" as that is the
nature of the capture device.


That's like trying to say a digital recording is really
analog since the microphone is.. And on digital capture, I
don't think any part of the capture is "analog". It's
converted to ones and zeros before it leaves the sensor..
At least with a microphone it is analog going through the
wires to then be digitized...


The digital part is storage. No different than a good
film scan.


The problem here Alan is you assume everyone is gonna scan
film. Some of us don't digitize any part of the process. I
have a feeling these guys aren't printing their B&W film
on an inkjet.. Hence them calling themselves analog
photographers. They probably aren't interested in talking
about PS profiles and which computer printers come closest
to a -real- B&W silver print etc.



Just say "film". Clear 'nuff. Good luck.


Maybe so but saying analog explains they aren't digitizing
their film..

Stephanie


In one way I agree with Alan. The human sensorium is
analogue in nature. Digital encoding of information has many
advantages in overcoming noise and non-linearities in
storage and transmission media but, if the stuff being
recorded or transmitted is for eventual human consumption it
has to eventually translate back to the analogue world.


--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



  #4  
Old February 27th 10, 04:18 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

On 10-02-26 22:58 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-02-16 7:18 ,
wrote:
Here in Silicon Valley we are a small group of traditional (analog)
B&W hobbyist. We welcome others of like mind to joint our discussion
group. Meeting once a month we share prints, ideas, problems,
questions, what if's, etc. This is not a typical camera club, no
ribbons, no cookies, no competition, no judges. If in the greater San
Jose area and interested contact me off list at


B&W is not "analog", it is film. A direct image recorded without
analogy. Once developed the film is an image.

Digital cameras are actually "analog" as that is the nature of the
capture device.


That's like trying to say a digital recording is really analog since the
microphone is.. And on digital capture, I don't think any part of the
capture is "analog". It's converted to ones and zeros before it leaves
the sensor.. At least with a microphone it is analog going through the
wires to then be digitized...


That's just structure. Some microphones digitize as close to the mike
as possible to avoid pickup of other noise in the system.

I'm not "anal" about these things - calling a digital camera "digital"
is no big deal, but to me calling film "analog" is a misappropriation of
the word analog because film is not digital - so it must be, what, er,
analog. That's it! Yes, analog!! (no).

Well, film is not digital but neither is it analog. It's film. It's an
image. No analog involved.

The digital part is storage. No different than a good film scan.


The problem here Alan is you assume everyone is gonna scan film. Some of


No assumption at all, just illustrating where the film can get converted
to digital if that's where it goes. Doesn't have to go that way of
course. Personally I have no patience for the DR, it's rare now that I
even develop a roll of B&W - though I have a tank and the (probably
degraded now) chemicals to do so. So I scan my MF and print on a large
professional pigment printer that gives mouth watering results.

us don't digitize any part of the process. I have a feeling these guys
aren't printing their B&W film on an inkjet.. Hence them calling
themselves analog photographers. They probably aren't interested in
talking about PS profiles and which computer printers come closest to a
-real- B&W silver print etc.



Just say "film". Clear 'nuff. Good luck.


Maybe so but saying analog explains they aren't digitizing their film..


The whole DR process is manipulating film images. It's not analog.
It's film. It's image.

Not many agree with me but it's really 'cause they don't understand the
origin of the term analog. That's where your microphone example fits.
A microphone, amplifier "represent" sound as a moment in time voltage
proportional to the sound pressure. That analog. An analogy.

Film holds a latent image. It is not analogous in any way. It is.

None of what I say above matters of course when you're taking photos
whether on film, projecting on paper or using digital.

Cheers and good shooting.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #5  
Old February 27th 10, 07:34 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

Richard Knoppow wrote:
wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:

Just say "film". Clear 'nuff. Good luck.

Maybe so but saying analog explains they aren't digitizing
their film..

Stephanie


In one way I agree with Alan. The human sensorium is
analogue in nature. Digital encoding of information has many
advantages in overcoming noise and non-linearities in
storage and transmission media but, if the stuff being
recorded or transmitted is for eventual human consumption it
has to eventually translate back to the analogue world.




True but is the monitor you're reading this on "analog"? It may be an
analog display of digital material but it's using a DA converter to do
it. In my way of thinking "analog" means that from start to end there is
no DA or AD conversion as part of the process. Very little is purely
digital if we use the definition that if any part of the process has an
analog component then it isn't digital. And if they aren't digital, why
are they called digital cameras? :-)

I would agree than scanning film isn't "analog photography" but I don't
believe that's what that group is doing.

Stephanie
  #6  
Old February 27th 10, 08:08 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

Alan Browne wrote:


Not many agree with me but it's really 'cause they don't understand the
origin of the term analog. That's where your microphone example fits. A
microphone, amplifier "represent" sound as a moment in time voltage
proportional to the sound pressure. That analog. An analogy.


It's because you are applying the wrong definition that most people
won't agree with this.

Film is an -Analog signal-, just like a microphone, as opposed to a
digital signal device which is limited by the binary steps of the file
it transmits and uses.. It doesn't matter if we are talking about sound
waves or light waves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_signal

Also film clearly is a "representation of a moment in time in film
density proportional to light received" with no steps involved. It's
infinitely variable, unlike digital which by design is in fixed steps.
This has nothing to do with the recorded range but in the number of
steps between the end points.

And on the microphone, the signal produced is analog because it's
infinitely variable, unlike the signal produced from a digital sensor
which again by design is recorded in fixed steps, only so many possible
variations per pixel. It would be like if the said microphone was a
"digital" wireless mic that sent it's signal digitally to a receiver. In
that case it would no longer be "analog" even if both the input and
output devices were analog.

As I stated and you noted, once someone does a analog/digital conversion
to something (scanning), it no longer is an analog product because it
has been subjected to the "limited steps" that digital imparts. If no
digital conversion is ever done to an analog input and output, it can be
nothing other than purely analog. It has nothing to do with reality or
manipulation of what existed, only in the way something is processed.


Stephanie
  #7  
Old February 27th 10, 09:10 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

On 10-02-27 14:08 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:


Not many agree with me but it's really 'cause they don't understand
the origin of the term analog. That's where your microphone example
fits. A microphone, amplifier "represent" sound as a moment in time
voltage proportional to the sound pressure. That analog. An analogy.


It's because you are applying the wrong definition that most people
won't agree with this.


At some point somebody used the term analog for film and it caught on
like wildfire. That doesn't make it "right".


Film is an -Analog signal-,


No. It's an image.

Because something is not digital that does not make it analog.

just like a microphone, as opposed to a


A microphone does not hold "sound" like film holds an image. A
microphone reacts to sound pressure and outputs a voltage (or other
signal) proportional ("analogous") to that signal. You can't hear the
sound of a vinyl disk by pointing your ears at it.

Film holds an image. It is an image storage medium. When developed
your eyes know exactly what it means without any playback device to
convert the analog to vision. It's just there.

digital signal device which is limited by the binary steps of the file
it transmits and uses.. It doesn't matter if we are talking about sound
waves or light waves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_signal

Film does not hold "waves" it holds an image. A static, unchanging thing.


Also film clearly is a "representation of a moment in time in film
density proportional to light received" with no steps involved. It's
infinitely variable, unlike digital which by design is in fixed steps.
This has nothing to do with the recorded range but in the number of
steps between the end points.


No. It's an image. Again, because something is not digital, it is not
necessarily analog.

You're not digital. You're not analog.


And on the microphone, the signal produced is analog because it's
infinitely variable, unlike the signal produced from a digital sensor
which again by design is recorded in fixed steps,


Actually a pre-digital image in the digital camera sensor is not so
discrete up to the time where it hits the A/D converter. The analog
prior to that is much finer in tonal variance than any film. at least in
the brighter regions of the image. The A/D process introduces
quantization steps (noise), however.

only so many possible
variations per pixel. It would be like if the said microphone was a
"digital" wireless mic that sent it's signal digitally to a receiver. In
that case it would no longer be "analog" even if both the input and
output devices were analog.


It would still be analog at the source (again, structure interferes), it
is converted to digital as soon as possible such that noise and other
distortions do not enter it ... eventually it is played back on speakers
converting the original back to an analog representation of sound until
the speakers cause the variations in air pressure that we hear as sound.

Put another way, there is nothing in any sound recording process that
you can "hear" w/o the analog being reproduced. Whether it is stored
digitally, on tape (analog) or vinyl (a mechanical analog) there is no
human that can "hear" those media w/o it being played back at about the
right rate through a transducer for your ears.

But film you see with your own eyes without any intermediary process to
make it suitable for your eyes. It just is. An image.

As I stated and you noted, once someone does a analog/digital conversion
to something (scanning), it no longer is an analog product because it
has been subjected to the "limited steps" that digital imparts. If no
digital conversion is ever done to an analog input and output, it can be
nothing other than purely analog. It has nothing to do with reality or
manipulation of what existed, only in the way something is processed.


No. It's not about processing. It's about representation. Film is an
image - not the analog (analogy) of an image.

Anyway I don't mean to get tied in knots about this.

If you believe it's analog, let your beliefs hold. I'll just quietly
ignore that trespass and look forward to your ___images___ and the
stories around them. Far more interesting than this debate.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #8  
Old February 27th 10, 10:54 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-02-27 14:08 , wrote:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_signal

Film does not hold "waves" it holds an image. A static, unchanging thing.


It has recorded the wave lengths of light it was exposed to. Infinitely
variable waveforms, not by recording them as a set of fixed steps that
digital would. This lack of fixed steps is what defines analog.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/analog

"of a system of measurement in which a continuously varying value, as
sound, temperature, etc., corresponds proportionally to another value"

There is nothing about analog that requires it be moving. Take recording
a temperature, that is a static value as well.

I think we can all agree film responds proportionally to the light it is
exposed to. And the density of the film base is changed to a
continuously variable value proportional to the light it was exposed to
as well.




Also film clearly is a "representation of a moment in time in film
density proportional to light received" with no steps involved. It's
infinitely variable, unlike digital which by design is in fixed steps.
This has nothing to do with the recorded range but in the number of
steps between the end points.


No. It's an image. Again, because something is not digital, it is not
necessarily analog.

You're not digital. You're not analog.


Actually we are analog. There are no "discrete steps" to our
perception/senses. And this is the same reason people can see/hear the
difference between some analog and digital processes. If this wasn't
true, we wouldn't see the color banding that occurs in low bit depth images.




And on the microphone, the signal produced is analog because it's
infinitely variable, unlike the signal produced from a digital sensor
which again by design is recorded in fixed steps,


Actually a pre-digital image in the digital camera sensor is not so
discrete up to the time where it hits the A/D converter.


Agreed, but then it had to go through a DA conversion before it leaves
the sensor. It's no longer an analog process.

The analog
prior to that is much finer in tonal variance than any film. at least in
the brighter regions of the image. The A/D process introduces
quantization steps (noise), however.


Exactly and these "steps" don't exist with film. Again that IS the
definition of analog. It's not that "there is an analogy", go research
the definitions of these words.


only so many possible
variations per pixel. It would be like if the said microphone was a
"digital" wireless mic that sent it's signal digitally to a receiver. In
that case it would no longer be "analog" even if both the input and
output devices were analog.


It would still be analog at the source (again, structure interferes), it
is converted to digital as soon as possible such that noise and other
distortions do not enter it ... eventually it is played back on speakers
converting the original back to an analog representation of sound until
the speakers cause the variations in air pressure that we hear as sound.


Exactly and it was "digitized" in the process. It is no longer an analog
process even though it was converted back to analog so we can hear it.



Put another way, there is nothing in any sound recording process that
you can "hear" w/o the analog being reproduced. Whether it is stored
digitally, on tape (analog) or vinyl (a mechanical analog) there is no
human that can "hear" those media w/o it being played back at about the
right rate through a transducer for your ears.


But this doesn't mean something hasn't been "digitized" just because it
is analog on both ends of the process.


But film you see with your own eyes without any intermediary process to
make it suitable for your eyes. It just is. An image.


Without some sort of processing, you wouldn't see anything on film/print
either. Besides needing a chemical process, you need a light source to
"convert" what is on the film back into wave forms we can then see.
Without this analog/analog conversion back into light waves, we wouldn't
see anything. What is on the film is only a representation of the
reflected light that entered the camera anyway..


As I stated and you noted, once someone does a analog/digital conversion
to something (scanning), it no longer is an analog product because it
has been subjected to the "limited steps" that digital imparts. If no
digital conversion is ever done to an analog input and output, it can be
nothing other than purely analog. It has nothing to do with reality or
manipulation of what existed, only in the way something is processed.


No. It's not about processing. It's about representation. Film is an
image - not the analog (analogy) of an image.


Here you go using "analogy" again. Can you point to a reference of any
sort that shows analog directly equals the word analogy? Or that analog
IS the adjective form of analogy? None of the dictionaries I referenced
point to this. This is why most people don't agree with your use, you
created this direct link between these two words yourself.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/analogy

http://www.yourdictionary.com/analog

Using your definition and relationship of these two words, a digital
image is more of an analog source because these bytes are a
representation of the image without being an image.. I don't think you'd
get very far arguing that one.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/computer/analog

The other measure of analog is there is a loss with each copy that is
made, clearly a problem with film that doesn't occur with digital. I
don't know if you have ever had dupe slides made or internegative prints
done, those both clearly will show a loss of image quality with each
subsequent generation from the original.



Anyway I don't mean to get tied in knots about this.

If you believe it's analog, let your beliefs hold. I'll just quietly
ignore that trespass and look forward to your ___images___ and the
stories around them. Far more interesting than this debate.



Well it seems most people agree film is an analog form of image capture
yet you seem to want to argue your misguided POV on the subject and this
isn't the first time you have done it. :-)

And no, I never heard film called "analog" before digital cameras. But
then I never heard tapes or vinyl called analog before CD's came out
either. Before digital, everything was done analog so there wasn't a
need to use this adjective.

Stephanie



  #9  
Old February 27th 10, 11:21 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Traditional B&W Interest Group

On 10-02-27 16:54 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-02-27 14:08 ,
wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_signal

Film does not hold "waves" it holds an image. A static, unchanging thing.


It has recorded the wave lengths of light it was exposed to. Infinitely
variable waveforms, not by recording them as a set of fixed steps that
digital would. This lack of fixed steps is what defines analog.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/analog

"of a system of measurement in which a continuously varying value, as
sound, temperature, etc., corresponds proportionally to another value"

There is nothing about analog that requires it be moving. Take recording
a temperature, that is a static value as well.


Stephe: this will be my last post on the subject of "analog".

1. Your quote: "continuously varying value" - over time. and:
your quote: "corresponds proportionally to another value"

Moving. Changing.

_Corresponding_ to _another_ value (this is the "analogy" part).

2. Temperature is definitely not static.
It varies over time too ... just typically very slowly (low
frequency measurement in engineering terms).

Film has no such characteristics - because it is an image - not an analog.

big snip

Well it seems most people agree film is an analog form of image capture
yet you seem to want to argue your misguided POV on the subject and this
isn't the first time you have done it. :-)


Far from misguided. Quite grounded in engineering definitions.

I can't help the majority who are often collectively wrong. I just
chuckle and move on (which is what I suggested in the last post).

And no, I never heard film called "analog" before digital cameras. But
then I never heard tapes or vinyl called analog before CD's came out


Well I had. Many times. My father was an "analog" engineer and called
it such when I was a wee lad. I was a digital guy (not an engineer, a
programmer - mostly interfaces and recording data. Lot's of data (both
analog and digital recorded on high speed tape and disk)).

either. Before digital, everything was done analog so there wasn't a
need to use this adjective.


See above. The use of "analogy" to represent measurements has been
going on for a long time. And been called that long before digital
became the favoured representation of information.

Good shooting. Digital or film.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Paid for your interest Dr Mu Digital Photography 0 November 3rd 07 10:58 PM
What an interest in holidays. Arthur Small Digital Photography 1 April 19th 06 03:08 AM
NYC: Photoshop Interest Group Meeting - Tuesday 2/7 1PM - 5PM$CHEAP Atilla the Hungery Digital SLR Cameras 0 February 6th 06 09:54 PM
Off Topic, but of interest to this group - I hope Frank Calidonna In The Darkroom 15 November 23rd 05 02:21 AM
Anyone Have Interest in Me? Negative Black and White Film Film & Labs 6 April 29th 04 08:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.