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 » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 23rd 04, 11:02 PM
Monte Castleman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles

Could the difference between film and digital not only be megapixels
but the "look" in a vauge sense?


I think the look has a lot to do with it. I did a project where I combined my
35mm photos with photos taken by someone else with a digital camera. Both were
done with what would be considered decent quality equipment. I asked my
stepfather, who has little photographic background to pick out the film vs
digital photos and he did so with close to 100% accuracy.

If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed
that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers. They may not be as good
as solid state based on hard measurments, but they may be better
sounding or more pleasing to the ear, with that advantage very likely
resulting from a technical inferiority, i.e., "good" distrortion.


Specs for tubes are terrible compared to solid state equipment, but there are
reasons people like them. Tubes have soft clipping, which can be analogized to
the response "knee" in film. Tubes have a nonlinearity and even-order
distortion give them a very unique "smooth" sound that's hard to duplicate
with solid state; similarly the film emulsions give a subtle unique look that
is not duplicated with digital.

Monte Castleman, Spamfilter in Use
Bloomington, MN to email, remove the "q" from address

  #2  
Old July 23rd 04, 11:02 PM
Monte Castleman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles

Could the difference between film and digital not only be megapixels
but the "look" in a vauge sense?


I think the look has a lot to do with it. I did a project where I combined my
35mm photos with photos taken by someone else with a digital camera. Both were
done with what would be considered decent quality equipment. I asked my
stepfather, who has little photographic background to pick out the film vs
digital photos and he did so with close to 100% accuracy.

If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed
that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers. They may not be as good
as solid state based on hard measurments, but they may be better
sounding or more pleasing to the ear, with that advantage very likely
resulting from a technical inferiority, i.e., "good" distrortion.


Specs for tubes are terrible compared to solid state equipment, but there are
reasons people like them. Tubes have soft clipping, which can be analogized to
the response "knee" in film. Tubes have a nonlinearity and even-order
distortion give them a very unique "smooth" sound that's hard to duplicate
with solid state; similarly the film emulsions give a subtle unique look that
is not duplicated with digital.

Monte Castleman, Spamfilter in Use
Bloomington, MN to email, remove the "q" from address

  #3  
Old July 23rd 04, 11:11 PM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles

I think the look has a lot to do with it. I did a project where I combined my

35mm photos with photos taken by someone else with a digital camera. Both
were
done with what would be considered decent quality equipment. I asked my
stepfather, who has little photographic background to pick out the film vs
digital photos and he did so with close to 100% accuracy.


I'm glad you said that. I often look at images and can tell immediately if they
were taken with a digital camera or a film camera. I also often hesitate to say
it so purists or fanatics of one medium or another don't flame me.

If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed
that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers.


Photographic film vs digital imaging is *not* the same as analog vs digital
audio/video. They are entirely different.




  #4  
Old July 23rd 04, 11:11 PM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles

I think the look has a lot to do with it. I did a project where I combined my

35mm photos with photos taken by someone else with a digital camera. Both
were
done with what would be considered decent quality equipment. I asked my
stepfather, who has little photographic background to pick out the film vs
digital photos and he did so with close to 100% accuracy.


I'm glad you said that. I often look at images and can tell immediately if they
were taken with a digital camera or a film camera. I also often hesitate to say
it so purists or fanatics of one medium or another don't flame me.

If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed
that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers.


Photographic film vs digital imaging is *not* the same as analog vs digital
audio/video. They are entirely different.




  #5  
Old July 23rd 04, 11:16 PM
richardsfault
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles


Could the difference between film and digital not only be megapixels
but the "look" in a vauge sense?

If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed
that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers. They may not be as good
as solid state based on hard measurments, but they may be better
sounding or more pleasing to the ear, with that advantage very likely
resulting from a technical inferiority, i.e., "good" distrortion.

Does anyone see an analogy where film might in some cases have a more
pleasing look?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

Richard's fault!

Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com
  #6  
Old July 23rd 04, 11:18 PM
Richard Cockburn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles

(Sabineellen) wrote in
:

If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed
that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers.


Tube amps do have a very distinct sound.

--
"Live fast. Die young." (Nikki Sixx)

-Richard Cockburn
  #7  
Old July 23rd 04, 11:18 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles

richardsfault writes:

Could the difference between film and digital not only be megapixels
but the "look" in a vauge sense?


Obviously, although neither look is that distinctive. Often it's
impossible to tell the two apart.

If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed
that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers.


They are, IF they are overdriven. Tubes handle distortion in a more
audibly pleasing way than do transistors, and since many guitar players
deliberately drive their systems into distortion, this is important to
them.

Under normal operating conditions, transistors are better (today).

Does anyone see an analogy where film might in some cases have a more
pleasing look?


No. Film provides better image quality in many ways, but not
necessarily a more pleasing look. The fact is, the best images look
just like real life, and that is independent of the capture method.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #8  
Old July 23rd 04, 11:18 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles

richardsfault writes:

Could the difference between film and digital not only be megapixels
but the "look" in a vauge sense?


Obviously, although neither look is that distinctive. Often it's
impossible to tell the two apart.

If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed
that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers.


They are, IF they are overdriven. Tubes handle distortion in a more
audibly pleasing way than do transistors, and since many guitar players
deliberately drive their systems into distortion, this is important to
them.

Under normal operating conditions, transistors are better (today).

Does anyone see an analogy where film might in some cases have a more
pleasing look?


No. Film provides better image quality in many ways, but not
necessarily a more pleasing look. The fact is, the best images look
just like real life, and that is independent of the capture method.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #9  
Old July 23rd 04, 11:29 PM
Richard Cockburn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

They are, IF they are overdriven. Tubes handle distortion in a more
audibly pleasing way than do transistors, and since many guitar players
deliberately drive their systems into distortion, this is important to
them.

Under normal operating conditions, transistors are better (today).


Many Jazz and Blues guitarists still prefer tube amps even for a clean
sound.

--
"Live fast. Die young." (Nikki Sixx)

-Richard Cockburn
  #10  
Old July 24th 04, 08:23 AM
Justin Thyme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles


"richardsfault" wrote in message
...

Could the difference between film and digital not only be megapixels
but the "look" in a vauge sense?

If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed
that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers. They may not be as good
as solid state based on hard measurments, but they may be better
sounding or more pleasing to the ear, with that advantage very likely
resulting from a technical inferiority, i.e., "good" distrortion.

Does anyone see an analogy where film might in some cases have a more
pleasing look?

I agree, and have used in the past the analogy of CD vs Vinyl - CD is
technically better, but vinyl has that distinct sound that (to my ear
anyway) just sounds better. Valve's introduce more noise which is noticeable
at low amplification, and they have a different clip pattern when
overdriven. This to some extent is similar to film's non-linear response
when under or over-exposed. Of course this varies by the type of film used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

Richard's fault!

Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com



 




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
Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles Justin Thyme 35mm Photo Equipment 7 July 25th 04 04:18 PM
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 9 June 19th 04 05:48 PM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:16 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.