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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Traditional B&W Interest Group
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-02-27 16:54 , wrote: Far from misguided. Quite grounded in engineering definitions. Ah an engineer, that explains the "I am right" attitude :-) Interesting how engineers always throw out their background when their logic is failing.. I just chuckle and move on Really? O.o And if you don't understand how the zone system is placing a scene's luminance "_Corresponding_ to _another_ value (this is the "analogy" part)" represented on film by the varying density of the negative, maybe you better stick with your digital stuff! Stephanie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Paid for your interest | Dr Mu | Digital Photography | 0 | November 3rd 07 09:58 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 08:54 PM |
Off Topic, but of interest to this group - I hope | Frank Calidonna | In The Darkroom | 15 | November 23rd 05 01:21 AM |
Anyone Have Interest in Me? | Negative Black and White Film | Film & Labs | 6 | April 29th 04 08:38 AM |