There is still NO digital that comes remotely close to analogue. Digital lacks warmth, decay, dimensionality and overtones.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The death of digital photography....
- Thread starter don m
- Start date
Cubfan
Leading Member
don m
Senior Member
Geoff,
I have to agree with you that digital is here to stay and is increasing in popularity.... This forum (and DPReview) is a testimony to that as you said. Many people have become involved in photography because of digital cameras and a great deal of us (me included) have become "reinvolved" as a result of digital photography.... Your statement "The era of digital photography really captured my imagination and got me interested in digital stills and video. It's fun, enjoyable and the quality is good." sums it up very well!!
Thank you,
Don
I have to agree with you that digital is here to stay and is increasing in popularity.... This forum (and DPReview) is a testimony to that as you said. Many people have become involved in photography because of digital cameras and a great deal of us (me included) have become "reinvolved" as a result of digital photography.... Your statement "The era of digital photography really captured my imagination and got me interested in digital stills and video. It's fun, enjoyable and the quality is good." sums it up very well!!
Thank you,
Don
fg
Leading Member
Cubfan, you belive everything they teach you in college?
How do you figure cds contain more info?
Now I meant that original comment as somewhat tounge in check. I own 1000+ cds and given the choice between vinyl and cd, but the cd.
Vinyl is "better" because it's a direct reproduction of the original signal, whereas any digital format must be "sampled" from that original signal, so it can never be the same as that signal. There will always be "stair steps" so to speak. Pixels in the case of photography, i'm not sure what in a digital sound file.
But, you can't take vinyl in the car*, running with you, rip it to MP3, program it*, and it degrades over time. So in that case, it's not better.
And I doubt most of us can hear it, but there is a difference, but then you get into using words like "depth", and "warmth" and that's totally subjective.
So Cubfan, using you problem solving, critical thinking skills you picked up in university, answer me this:
If a CD and a vinyl record are created from the same source, and the record is a physical copy of that original source (as anything that gets digitized comes from a analog source) and the CD is taking a numerical snapshot of that source 44,000 times a second or whatever (which is impressive) how is it better? It's still not the continuous signal.
Cubfan
Leading Member
fg, (in the fetal postion, nestling the crosby, stills, and nash album from his youth)
the reality is that the analog signal is just pieces of information, its just like with a film photo, its only continuous to a certain degree... if you think that vinyl is an exact continuous reproduction of what is recorded, then i think you're the one who needes to go back to college.
the reality is that the analog signal is just pieces of information, its just like with a film photo, its only continuous to a certain degree... if you think that vinyl is an exact continuous reproduction of what is recorded, then i think you're the one who needes to go back to college.
fg
Leading Member
Like I said, I own 1000+ cd's and maybe only 100+ pieces of vinyl. I'm not tossing my film camera anytime soon.
my point being that it's more continous than a digitally sampled signal. sure film has grain. I think the bigger deal with film is in the color. It has much more range than digital.
-southsiders winning ugly
Cubfan
Leading Member
lets agree to disagree in the CD vs. Vinyl debate, afterall this is a digital photography forum isn't it?
and i do agree with you about photography, digital definitely has not reached the level of film yet... but i imagine one day it will (not quite that close yet), and there will still be the digital naysayers
and i do agree with you about photography, digital definitely has not reached the level of film yet... but i imagine one day it will (not quite that close yet), and there will still be the digital naysayers
Mathias Vejerslev
Senior Member
Mike Fitzgerald
Veteran Member
And the companion article with reference to ISO 400:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/iso100-400.htm
I think this post is to stir up people for the fun of it. In any event, I have shot a couple of the best pictures I have ever seen with my friends’ digital camera. Pet portraits. It is a Sony DSC-S70…not the best out there, but very nice. I am shopping and am probably going to purchase a G2 when it hits the store shelves. Having used the Sony for several months I think I can make a much wiser purchase at this time. The G1 and G2 have many of the features I like. Anyway, as I said before…I have shot some of the best photos ever with this digital camera. How? Because I can shoot a bunch of pictures and then check them out on computer I can keep on trying until I get what I want. With flash, without flash, Aperture mode, Shutter mode….I try everything and then I can instantly see what works and what doesn’t. With film I would have to be rich, study forever, have a close encounter with chemicals, then try again. If everything went right I might get something I could show a friend, but if just one thing went wrong in the chain I would have nothing.
As it is I don’t have the money or the know how to mess with chemicals so I take my film to the local guys. If it is the beginning of a development cycle I get prints from chemicals too strong. If I’m at the end of a cycle I get prints with a funny tint. If I just happen into the shop at the right time and just happen to have the perfect roll of film I might get something nice. I have in the past, but I feel it is a crap shoot. I’m not a pro, but I would post a couple of the shots I took of my wonderful cat today against anybody. Most of us just want memories of family, friends, places, reminders of our lives… and digital cameras allow the average guy to shoot wonderful pictures. The artist can shoot wonderful portraits with film or digital with training, but my bet is the average Joe on this forum doesn’t have the time or money to knit pick with film. I still use film for shots that I think I will enlarge into wall shots…20” by 30”, but that day will end soon. I get 11” by 14”’s now. With the G2 or the Sony 707…or some of the pro digital cameras there is no reason to think we all can’t do better with photography. As I shoot pictures of our pets and vacations and get shot after shot of perfectly sharp pictures with the only drawback being my skills, I have one regret…that I didn’t have a digital camera when my beloved dog Buck was alive. I have many perfect shots of our dogs and cats now, but Buck died one month before my digital encounter. I didn’t shoot as many film shots as I should have. It was a pain. They almost always came out off in some way. Luckily I have been a camcorder man since 1990 and have many wonderful videos of my favorite 4-legged friend. Digital cameras re-awakened my passion for still photography. I thank the tech boys for all the work they put into it. I feel like a driver at Indy with the tech guys working in the pit. I drive the vehicle to the best of my abilities, and my abilities will grow because I love driving the digital machine.
I Love Digital. It makes my life better. Thanks people…as I look back on this note I realize I stood on my soapbox a long time. Sincerely…Jeff Lunt
As it is I don’t have the money or the know how to mess with chemicals so I take my film to the local guys. If it is the beginning of a development cycle I get prints from chemicals too strong. If I’m at the end of a cycle I get prints with a funny tint. If I just happen into the shop at the right time and just happen to have the perfect roll of film I might get something nice. I have in the past, but I feel it is a crap shoot. I’m not a pro, but I would post a couple of the shots I took of my wonderful cat today against anybody. Most of us just want memories of family, friends, places, reminders of our lives… and digital cameras allow the average guy to shoot wonderful pictures. The artist can shoot wonderful portraits with film or digital with training, but my bet is the average Joe on this forum doesn’t have the time or money to knit pick with film. I still use film for shots that I think I will enlarge into wall shots…20” by 30”, but that day will end soon. I get 11” by 14”’s now. With the G2 or the Sony 707…or some of the pro digital cameras there is no reason to think we all can’t do better with photography. As I shoot pictures of our pets and vacations and get shot after shot of perfectly sharp pictures with the only drawback being my skills, I have one regret…that I didn’t have a digital camera when my beloved dog Buck was alive. I have many perfect shots of our dogs and cats now, but Buck died one month before my digital encounter. I didn’t shoot as many film shots as I should have. It was a pain. They almost always came out off in some way. Luckily I have been a camcorder man since 1990 and have many wonderful videos of my favorite 4-legged friend. Digital cameras re-awakened my passion for still photography. I thank the tech boys for all the work they put into it. I feel like a driver at Indy with the tech guys working in the pit. I drive the vehicle to the best of my abilities, and my abilities will grow because I love driving the digital machine.
I Love Digital. It makes my life better. Thanks people…as I look back on this note I realize I stood on my soapbox a long time. Sincerely…Jeff Lunt
Mike Fitzgerald
Veteran Member
Very, very well said, Jeff!!!!!!!!!
Yes, the boffins are almost always forgotten. As far as front people getting all the accolades goes, it's probably a toss up between Formula One and Hollywood (where, 'tis said, the only word of more than one syllable that's understood by the natives is "fillum"
).Mike
Fotomania
Senior Member
Sometimes I use my old (and newer) SLR:s but as I became a happy digicam-owner in June, I have been using it 99% of the time ever since. I really like the idea of being able to see the picture at once and to have control in the digital darkroom with PhotoShop. Even some of my VERY good pictures taken with Nikon SLRs have turned out miserably when they were processed by Kodak, Fuji or other firms.
With SLR:s, I love to be able to have full manual control over exposure, focus and so on. And also the speed, I can take several pictures in a few seconds and really catch even a very quick situation.
So why do you fight about what's right? There is no right or wrong. Of course I love my computer, but I do prefer to get a loveletter written by hand than an email.
Go out there and take pictures, not pixels!
With SLR:s, I love to be able to have full manual control over exposure, focus and so on. And also the speed, I can take several pictures in a few seconds and really catch even a very quick situation.
So why do you fight about what's right? There is no right or wrong. Of course I love my computer, but I do prefer to get a loveletter written by hand than an email.
Go out there and take pictures, not pixels!
Larry G43983
Leading Member
A SLR advantage too often overlooked...
I'de just be happy to get a loveletter... period.
Larry
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum