The disappearance of darkness

nospam wrote:

add distortion for that 'warm tube sound'.

add grain/noise for that 'film look'. increase saturation for velvia.

those who want accuracy don't do either.

I wasn't aware there were so many who are police photographers
recording crime scenes, or producers of facsimiles of old
paintings.

-Wolfgang

Me wrote:

But I think you'll find that professional performers almost unanimously
use valve amps that they favour - I doubt that Eric Clapton for example
would have much real interest in performing with a modelling (DSP) amp
on which he can flick a knob to change tone to sound like Joe Satriani's
setup one minute, Stevie Ray Vaughn the next, then flick back to the
Eric Clapton setup DSP preset.

Of course. Art is often made to be hard. "Hand painted",
for example. Costs more and usually is of lesser quality than
proper manufacturing techniques (or is way more expensive).

But is sells ...

-Wolfgang

In article , PeterN
wrote:

There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
misplaces preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak
will mourn the passing of wet film.

Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to what
can be printed from digital.

for no good reason.

anything that can be done with film and paper can be done with digital
a whole lot better, and the old look can be emulated if that's really
what they want.

the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology.

I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
the gross inaccuracy of your statement.

go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.

there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
proven. it is not a matter of opinion.

digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
goes on, the difference will get bigger.

digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
results.

if someone wants a 'film look,' they can duplicate it digitally. they
can add back grain or match what kodachrome or velvia would have done
or whatever else is needed to match their favourite film. there are
plug-ins that do this automatically with a couple of clicks, or it can
be done manually. or do both, run the plug-in then tweak it some more.
the possibilities are endless.

or, they can decide to stay with the higher quality of digital and not
intentionally make the image worse.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Actually there are plenty who still favour real B&W film and papers to
what

can be printed from digital.

for no good reason.

Other than it's not repeatable as easily as digital is, part of the charm is
having to get it right. I have say 12 shots on 120 film to get what you want
is rather more challenging than taking 5,000 inages on a 16GB card and
sifting through them for the 'best'.

you can limit yourself to just 12 shots on digital if you want. buy a
really small memory card if you can't just stop at 12.

the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology.

I miss the taste of hypo when I used to syphon it back from the tray to the
bottle, not forgetting the smell of processing cibrachrome in a drum and the
excitment of adding the neutralizing chemcal to make the it 'safe' to pour
down the sink.

cibachrome had a pretty nasty smell. i don't miss any of that.

with offsite backups, you won't lose any images if your house burns
down. there's an identical copy elsewhere. the more offsite backups,
the better.

Sometimes what makes a thing worth while is it uniqueness and individuality.

not when it comes to backups, it isn't.

Even though there is *nothing* superior about vinyl, many still
prefer the ritual.

digital could be configured to stop every 20 minutes to 'flip'

it would have to be semi-random as not every album needed flipping after
20mins.

an lp record was about 20 minutes per side. some were a little more,
some were a little less.

the point is you can put a break at exactly the same place as it was on
a record.

On 5/8/2013 1:10 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN

snip


the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology.

I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
the gross inaccuracy of your statement.

go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.

there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
proven. it is not a matter of opinion.


When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?

BTW Your statement was
"the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology."

When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
a proper introduction.


digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
goes on, the difference will get bigger.

digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
results.

Not the issue - see above


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology.

I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
the gross inaccuracy of your statement.

go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.

there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
proven. it is not a matter of opinion.

When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?

BTW Your statement was
"the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology."

When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
a proper introduction.

digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
goes on, the difference will get bigger.

digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
results.

Not the issue - see above

it's *exactly* the issue.

the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
it happens to be.

the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
software.

On 5/8/2013 2:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology.

I would be happy to introduce you to some who would easily demonstrate
the gross inaccuracy of your statement.

go for it. i would be happy to convince them of their mistaken beliefs.

there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about my statement. it can be
proven. it is not a matter of opinion.

When will you be in New York. Or perhaps Downeast in Maine?

BTW Your statement was
"the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept new
technology."

When you let me know who you are and when you are available, I will make
a proper introduction.

digital is better than film and has been for many years, and as time
goes on, the difference will get bigger.

digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, more accurate
colour, usable at *much* higher isos, more consistent (no variation
batch to batch), does not expire and does not need to be kept cold.
it's also cheaper per photo and no need for noxious chemicals to get
results.

Not the issue - see above

it's *exactly* the issue.

the film luddites think there's something magical about film. there is
not. all of its characteristics can be modeled digitally, whatever film
it happens to be.

the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
software.


Stop shape shifting.
You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to
accept new technology." I called you on it. Now when do you want to meet
real people who do not fit your classification.

that is the sole issue.
--
PeterN

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/8/2013 5:36 AM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
SNIP


You would not drape a lace curtain in front of an old master.


No! But our Department of Justice did, to the tune of eight thousand
dollars.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm

What is wrong with the use of filters to create art.

Nothing, but don't pretend that inferior technology is better.


--
PeterN

"Me" wrote in message
...
On 8/05/2013 10:16 p.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2013.05.07 16:25 , Me wrote:
On 8/05/2013 1:02 a.m., R. Mark Clayton wrote:


There might be a bit of nostalgia for vinyl records and even some
misplaces
preference for valve amps, but I doubt many other than Kodak will
mourn the
passing of wet film.


Some of the preference for valve amps isn't misplaced. They're still
the standard for some instrument amplification (guitars).
There's also a parallel there with film/digital photography, as digital
sond processing is used in sound-processing in so-called "modelling
amps" (solid state) to replicate the "tone" (non-linear response) of
valve amps. It's a bit like using a "velvia" filter in photoshop etc,
to replicate the look of film.


The sole advantage tube amps have over transistors is the continuous
smooth transition of -ve to +ve voltages through the signal range
whereas
transistors have a discontinuity near 0 volts (for both the "push"
transistor (+ve side) and "pull" (-ve side) of the output in a class B
amplifier).

Doh! you normally bias transistors, so it doesn't go -10V to +10V, but
+5V
to +25V.

Valve amps do demonstate tonality and high [thermal] noise.

Transistors were adopted in amps (and much else) because they
outperformed
valves on linearity / distortion, frequency response, reliability, noise,
size, energy consumption and last but by no means least cost.

Example - a basic EF81 (AF valve) was over £1 retail in 1973, when they
were
still in mass production - that is about £11 ($16) today. Even now an
equivalent transistor would cost less than a dollar and out perform it in
every way.

Some still are in mass production - perhaps just not in the kind of volume
as 50 years ago, ie:
http://www.jj-electronic.com/
There are also makers in Russia and China.

No doubt - quite a good design IIRC.



It's moved on a bit recently too, with class D amps setting efficiency
standards, increased efficiency means less heat, smaller size. For large
concert PA systems - this type of audio amp may be used these days:
http://www.powersoft-audio.com/en/pr...eries/k20.html
2 x 9000w in a small rack mount unit, 12kg weight.
(but you can almost guarantee that the guitarist will still be using his
valve amp, miked in to the PA)

My partner worried when I bought a Sony AV amp (7x100W) - note sure what she
would make of 18kW!

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/8/2013 2:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

SNIP

the kodachrome look or velvia look can be done in software. grainy b/w
films can be done in software. whatever film you prefer can be done in
software.


Stop shape shifting.
You said: "the only people who prefer film are those who refuse to accept
new technology." I called you on it. Now when do you want to meet real
people who do not fit your classification.

Peter is basically right. There may be a few niches left for film (X-rays
for instance, but even then...), but essentially almost all who still use
film do so because they are set in their ways or they have not got around to
buying new equipment yet.

Again, when I was a kid in the sixties I used to be able to tell which
pictures in National Geographic were Kodachrome and which Ektachrome just by
looking and this was after process colour printing. Even with the highest
standards of professional shooting and production there was a big colour
cast on both (slate grey / blue on the former; orangy red on the latter).
Sure film has improved since then, but has now been completely overhauled by
digital.

Similarly in the late 1980's I could tell when Signal Radio was playing CD's
by ear as I drove along the M6 because the sound quality was so much better.
This was despite the fact that Signal obviously had top quality vinyl decks,
it had a radio segment and was playing in my relatively noisy car.

On my home system it is easy to forget and leave the amp is on because the
noise level is so low with no signal you just can't hear it. There would be
[intrusive] audible hiss from a valve amp.

People who think vinyl is better than CD, valves amps are better than
transistor and since fairly recently film is better than digital are just
deluding themselves.

These are the same suckers who buy silver speaker leads and $100+ [even
digital] interconnects...



that is the sole issue.
--
PeterN