Analogue or Digital?

[jb7]

This is one of my pet peeves-

There can be so much heated debate about the word 'Bokeh' which actually refers to identifiable qualities within a picture, but when did people start referring to film photography as analogue photography? To me, it just implies that it's the opposite of digital, like Dog is the opposite of Cat...

This is not a Film v. Digital argument, more of a question- given, in particular, the effects of reciprocity on the exposure of film, can it properly be termed 'Analogue' at all, or is it just a digital age affectation? Also, since a grain of silver is either exposed and developed, or unexposed and dissolved, surely it's more akin to a 1 0 digital, em, analogy, for want of a better word?

If it can be argued that traditional photography is Analogue, then I'll accept it, but if there's dissent, then I might prefer to continue calling it film, or wet-plate, or whatever it is...

[jp]

It's analog but you don't have to call it that. It doesn't have to be linear nor follow a predictable log scale to be analog to answer your question about reciprocity.

When I look at grain under the focusing scope, I see lots of shades of gray and not a uniform grid of pixels that are read according to a 8/12/14/16 bit digitizer chip.

[jb7]

Thank you, I think that's enough for me.

Also, although digital output is written and read as ones and zeros, doesn't a digital sensor behave in an analogue way?

[IanG]

Unlike Digital there are far more grains of silver and these can each be exposed And develop to a greater or lesser extents so it's not a simple on/off analogy.

Ian

[Pawlowski6132]

I believe that film, by definition, is a digital format. It uses discreet elements (like a pixel) to form the appearance of a continuous image. Good examples of Analog vs. Digital are LP Record vs. CD or Watch with a sweeping second hand vs. a watch with a second hand that is "clicking" along one sec at a time.

[SergeiR]

Thank you, I think that's enough for me.

Also, although digital output is written and read as ones and zeros, doesn't a digital sensor behave in an analogue way?

no. Same as with sound. Digital recording has finite number of values per "slot". Analogue - virtually any. If it will make easier for you - if you have slot for numbers between 1 to 10.
Digital might record only 1- 4 - 8 - 10 (e.g). Analogue can be any number like 5.9999954595 (depending on precision of actual device of course). So where digital will read 4 or 8 , your true value will never be restored.

No matter how you normalize space of digits - you ending up with finite number of discrete values. Analogue is continious field by nature.

[jb7]

Well that's all very well, but you don't seem to be comparing equally at pixel level. As Pawlowski mentioned, the discrete elements of a piece of film, the picture elements, are crystals of silver, or not. Either it's there or it isn't. Of course, if you choose to aggregate those grains into bigger areas to suit your position, then they will conform to your model, and you will have a continuous field.

It's not a question of making it easy for me, it's a question of a description, analogue, that didn't exist before it was forced to, by the advent of digital. The distinction is a political one, not a descriptive one, otherwise there would be a lot of people subscribing to something called PUG...

[Pawlowski6132]

A better point of comparison might be labeled organic vs. non-organic.

[Ken Lee]

Thank you, I think that's enough for me.

Also, although digital output is written and read as ones and zeros, doesn't a digital sensor behave in an analogue way?

Actually, there is nothing purely continuous (analog) or discrete (digital). All measurements are inherently uncertain.

Under magnification, a straight line will look like a series of curves. Under magnification, a curve will look like a series of straight line segments.

It all goes back to Euclid's Elements, the very first line: "A point is that which has no part". Nobody has ever found a point, or a line, or a curve. It's convenient to use the terms of course, but they are imaginary.

To quote an old Chinese philosopher, "These two are merely relative, and both at source are emptiness".

[Sevo]

Well that's all very well, but you don't seem to be comparing equally at pixel level. As Pawlowski mentioned, the discrete elements of a piece of film, the picture elements, are crystals of silver, or not. Either it's there or it isn't.

No, they are here, there or elsewhere, big, small or non-existent. That is, they have non-discrete variable size, position and density! Which is very different from pixels, which are (at least in all current digital recording processes) fixed size and position and will only vary in density, in discrete steps.

[Drew Wiley]

I thought digital was a sign language they teach orangutans.

[John Kasaian]

Anal+log...hmm...? Lets not go there!

[Brian Ellis]

. . . If it can be argued that traditional photography is Analogue, then I'll accept it, but if there's dissent, then I might prefer to continue calling it film, or wet-plate, or whatever it is...

Why don't you just call it whatever you want?

[jb7]

I will-
as I said, it's just a pet peeve-
Up there with 'no brainer' and 'trust me'.

[E. von Hoegh]

I will-
as I said, it's just a pet peeve-
Up there with 'no brainer' and 'trust me'.

Digital, analog. Same difference.

[pbryld]

It's analog but you don't have to call it that.

Not sure if you're joking... But in English, it's spelled analogue.

[Pawlowski6132]

Not sure if you're joking... But in English, it's spelled analogue.

I noticed they spell a lot of things wrong over there.

[E. von Hoegh]

Not sure if you're joking... But in English, it's spelled analogue.

Correct. However, he's typing in American.

[pbryld]

I noticed they spell a lot of things wrong over there.

I think they specialise in it.

[rdenney]

Unlike Digital there are far more grains of silver and these can each be exposed And develop to a greater or lesser extents so it's not a simple on/off analogy.

That is just a matter of technology.

Right now, sensors are organized in a Bayer array, or a Foveon array, or something similar. And the files are organized as rows and columns of pixels. But that is just the current technology, and there's no reason to think that is how it will always be.

Consider e-Ink displays as used on e-readers like the Kindle. The display comprises a random scattering of variously sized bubbles. Each bubble is filled with an opaque white fluid within which is suspended black magnetic ink particles. When charged one way, the ink sinks revealing the white fluid. When charged the other way, the ink rises and becomes visible. E-Ink looks as good as it does because it does not depend on an array of rows and columns. It's easy to imagine that we will outgrow orderly rows and columns in other imaging systems someday, too.

Analogue usually means that the signal used to drive it has not been described numerically, but rather is interpreted directly as a continuous waveform rather than as a numerical description of a continuous waveform. For example, all "analogue" televisions made for many years received analogue signals (continuous waveforms transmitted over the air or over a cable), and then immediately digitized them for processing and display on the screen. The only difference between "analogue" and "digital" television is that the signal transmitted over the air is a continuous waveform on the one hand and a series of numerical descriptions (whatever numbering system that might be used--binary, hexadecimal, octal, decimal--does it matter?) on the other. When one views a television, that's a pretty abstract distinction, though there are specific advantages and disadvantages of each, based on specific technologies as they exist (or existed).

In photography, the only real difference I can find between film photography and digital photography is that in the former case, the artifact of the activity is a piece of film, and in the latter, it is a computer file, based on what was actually exposed to light within the camera. Aesthetic differences are a matter of technology, not concept, and it's easy to imagine how the technology of digital systems will continue to change, perhaps radically, so that all the aesthetic generalizations people make now become obsolete (assuming they have any truth now, which they usually don't). There is a real difference, however, in that artifact, in terms of its storage, management, application, durability, reliability, longevity, life-cycle cost, loss risk, and on and on. And those differences are also changing all the time as the supporting technologies emerge and recede.

There is a current practical difference, too. With film, people can explore extremely high image quality using modest equipment, if they are prepared to practice impeccable technique. The image coming from a cheapie Calumet view camera is as good as the image coming from a Linhof, Arca, or Sinar. The difference between a Caltar lens and the latest high-end wonder from Schneider or Rodenstock is also too subtle to provide much of a limitation on those with modest means. Not so with digital. With digital, high-end image quality costs, and costs big. So, we move from a model of approaching the state of the art even with modest equipment (if we are willing to make the investment in technique) to needing not only that technique, but perhaps tens of thousands of dollars in high-end equipment. That more than anything keeps me a film user. I just can't afford the digital equipment that would even have a chance of satisfying me in terms of image quality, when that quality is what is driving my inspiration for a photo. That, too, will probably change--I just hope it does before film (or its critical supporting technology infrastructure) goes away.

Rick "who fondled a Pentax 645D again this weekend, and is depressed" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

I never can figure out why the English have such big a problem with English. Do you burn
"logues" in fireplaces over there?

[Old-N-Feeble]

Correct. However, he's typing in American.

It's Newspeak. Be wary of what you say and think. Big Brother is listening... watching.:)

I once complimented a nice lady in a bank in San Antonio, Texas regarding her English "accent". She blankly stared back at me silently. I realized my error and reversed my statement admitting that it's we Americans who accent the language. She replied, "Yes, it is Americans who change the English language but you don't accent it. You murder it."

[jeffstev1]

"the effects of reciprocity on the exposure of film, can it properly be termed 'Analogue' at all" Reciprocity works for both analog and digital in that 1/100th second at f/11 gives the same exposure as 1/200th second at f/8. You may mean "reciprocity failure" which is when you expose outside the design parameters of the film and reciprocity does not work. Examples with film would be very short or very long exposures (1/10,000 sec, 10 seconds, etc.). Reciprocity failure for film sets in around 1 second or so. Digital reciprocity works much better into long exposures before failure sets in.

[rdenney]

It's Newspeak. Be wary of what you say and think. Big Brother is listening... watching.:)

I once complimented a nice lady in a bank in San Antonio, Texas regarding her English "accent". Should stared back at me silently. I realized my error and reversed my statement admitting that it's we Americans who accent the language. She replied, "Yes, it is Americans who change the English language but you don't accent it. You murder it."

In San Antonio? They speak English in San Antonio? I think I would have said "Pendeja!" and smiled broadly. Let's see how good her tex-mex Spanglish is.

But when I hear the British say such things, and if they are in the mood to spar on the topic, I ask them why their own speech doesn't sound much like Bunyan. Or Shakespeare. Or Chaucer. Or the Venerable Bede. Or Danish (the Angles--English--came from Denmark). Or Saxon. Or Celtic. Or Latin. Or Old Norse. Who's to say that the changes to the language that have occurred on that little island known as the UKoGBaNI in the last 300 years are any more genuine than those that have occurred in the former colonies over that period? People settled here from England starting about the time the King James Bible was first published, but the last time I was in London, what I heard there didn't sound much like what I read in the KJV.

I've heard it argued by philologists and linguists that the Appalachian accent in America may be closer to the English of the early colonial period than the English spoken elsewhere in either country today.

Rick "whose surname is an English transliteration--think 'claret' for an example of how badly that goes--of a French description of 'Danish'" Denney

[jb7]

Sorry, in deference to my first Photography tutor, who brought up the same topic over thirty years ago, I've always called it Reciprocity Effect. He made the point that Reciprocity Failure was too judgmental, that the film was doing what it was supposed to do, and that the failure resided in our expectations and tables.

Rick, based on your contributions to the DSLR scanning thread, I'd say you have over 90% of the equipment needed to produce high end digital results, as long as it's possible to represent the subject matter by using stitched frames. The same software you use to stitch the scans can be used to stitch originals; perhaps the only extra piece of kit you need is a pano head.

Each system has advantages and disadvantages, but if huge resolution is a driving force, then it's really quite attainable using any DSLR and a decent lens.

[rdenney]

Many of my images need to be made in a single exposure. I am rarely happy with stitched panoramas. I can control the breeze and other subject movement with my scanning setup, but I still have not addressed the stitching artifacts problem with that system.

And then there's the desire I have to express my own skills, however obsolete they may become, for the mere satisfaction I derive from expressing them. A view camera provides image management tools that with most digital cameras (even such as the Pentax and Hasselblad) requires post-exposure software mainpulation of geometric relationships and shapes. Or it requires multiple images again (for focus stacking). The scanning project is a science project as much as anything, and not something I'd want to do when making photographs in the field. I'd need one of those high-end digital backs mounted on my view camera. And then I'd have to buy new lenses--I like short lenses.

Rick "who never wants to say, 'Hold still while my machine makes 16 exposures!'" Denney

[Old-N-Feeble]

In San Antonio? They speak English in San Antonio? I think I would have said "Pendeja!" and smiled broadly. Let's see how good her tex-mex Spanglish is.

But when I hear the British say such things, and if they are in the mood to spar on the topic, I ask them why their own speech doesn't sound much like Bunyan. Or Shakespeare. Or Chaucer. Or the Venerable Bede. Or Danish (the Angles--English--came from Denmark). Or Saxon. Or Celtic. Or Latin. Or Old Norse. Who's to say that the changes to the language that have occurred on that little island known as the UKoGBaNI in the last 300 years are any more genuine than those that have occurred in the former colonies over that period? People settled here from England starting about the time the King James Bible was first published, but the last time I was in London, what I heard there didn't sound much like what I read in the KJV.

I've heard it argued by philologists and linguists that the Appalachian accent in America may be closer to the English of the early colonial period than the English spoken elsewhere in either country today.

Rick "whose surname is an English transliteration--think 'claret' for an example of how badly that goes--of a French description of 'Danish'" Denney

Be mindful of thine durstful language, sir, lest ye piss off a sharp-tongued Brit with fullsome wit and fearsome sword and thou shalt perish midst thine own misgivings and thine life's labours shall be for naught!!

We Texans speak Tex-Talk... a far more ree-fined lang-idge and we don't give no rattlesnake's ass what nobody else thinks.

[Vaughn]

I never can figure out why the English have such big a problem with English. Do you burn
"logues" in fireplaces over there?

No, they burn faggots.

[Pawlowski6132]

Ha!!

I think you mean fags.

Or do you??


No, they burn faggots.

[Steve Smith]

I never can figure out why the English have such big a problem with English.

It's clearly not us who have a problem with it!!


Steve.

[Old-N-Feeble]

No, they burn faggots.

I've read about that. Damned cruel, that practice. Many would say it's a waste of wood. I'm not a conifer man, myself, and only like crotch wood.

ETA: I'm not sure that last sentence fully gets my point across. I'm not very good at analogies.:)

[E. von Hoegh]

Ha!!

I think you mean fags.

Or do you??

Fags are smoked. Faggots are bundled. I had a gay time at the bar last night.

[Old-N-Feeble]

It's clearly not us who have a problem with it!!


Steve.

C'mon, Steve... You just don't like our efficiency mods.;)

[Vaughn]

Ha!!

I think you mean fags.

Or do you??

No, they smoke fags. (actually it is short for faggots -- any bundle of any material...in this case tobacco leaves)

Here in the US we still have real forests, so we burn cords. (satire alert!)

[E. von Hoegh]

No, they smoke fags. (actually it is short for faggots -- any bundle of any material...in this case tobacco leaves)

Here in the US we still have real forests, so we burn cords. (satire alert!)

As well as faces, butts, and boles.

[jb7]

These analogue/digital debates always descend into such a mess...

[E. von Hoegh]

These analogue/digital debates always descend into such a mess...

It's inevitable.

[Vaughn]

These analogue/digital debates always descend into such a mess...

And they should (JMO)

[E. von Hoegh]

I think the gudgeon pin in the lawnmower is making noise.

[Vaughn]

I thought they were that fish that come up on the beach to spawn...:)

[E. von Hoegh]

I thought they were that fish that come up on the beach to spawn...:)

And you watch them?.....

[Old-N-Feeble]

I thought they were that fish that come up on the beach to spawn...:)


And you watch them?.....

Fish porn?:confused::rolleyes:

[Steve Smith]

I think the gudgeon pin in the lawnmower is making noise.

One on't cross beams gone owt askew on't treadle.


Steve.

[rdenney]

Ha!!

I think you mean fags.

Those, too.

Rick "bundles of sticks, cigarettes, bassoons--all burnable" Denney

[Andrew O'Neill]

These analogue/digital debates always descend into such a mess...

Probably because there is no point to them anymore.

[rdenney]

We Texans speak Tex-Talk... a far more ree-fined lang-idge and we don't give no rattlesnake's ass what nobody else thinks.

Of course, even in Texas, nothing is set in stone. You'll get a far different accent over there'n Ann-yoo-ack (Anahuac, where my familly comes from), where they jess love them purty flars up against the bob-war fence over there by the awl well, compared to San Antonio (where I lived and ran the traffic signals for many years), where the common conversation at noontime was, "Quieres comer?" "Damn straight!" "Donde?" "It don't make me no le hace!" (That last bit pronounced "noliasi", of course.)

Rick "native Texan, currently in exile" Denney

[Old-N-Feeble]

Rick... you misspelled (mispronounce) there. It's "thar". You've apparently been in exile far too long. Pitty...

Git on home, little doe-gy!!

[E. von Hoegh]

Of course, even in Texas, nothing is set in stone. You'll get a far different accent over there'n Ann-yoo-ack (Anahuac, where my familly comes from), where they jess love them purty flars up against the bob-war fence over there by the awl well, compared to San Antonio (where I lived and ran the traffic signals for many years), where the common conversation at noontime was, "Quieres comer?" "Damn straight!" "Donde?" "It don't make me no le hace!" (That last bit pronounced "noliasi", of course.)

Rick "native Texan, currently in exile" Denney

Up here, we catch fish in the crick, put filum in the camera, and try not to burn elum wood unless we have to.

[Vaughn]

Thank the Goddess that we do not have accents out here on the Left Coast! :cool:

[pbryld]

Fish porn?:confused::rolleyes:



Maybe he likes fish sticks.


PS: please get the joke.

[E. von Hoegh]

Maybe he likes fish sticks.


PS: please get the joke.

You're a sick man.

PS Please get the compliment

[Old-N-Feeble]

Thank the Goddess that we do not have accents out here on the Left Coast! :cool:

Nope... but ya'll got all them durned yupees with their danged dee-ess-ell-arrz a-pointin' and a-chimpin' and a-shootin' agin an' agin'!! They're as irritatin' as them stray cats comin' around a-beggin' an' a-stealin' an' a-poopin' an' a-peeun. GIT, gawl durnit!!

[Vaughn]

Nope... but ya'll got all them durned yupees with their danged dee-ess-ell-arrz a-pointin' and a-chimpin' and a-shootin' agin an' agin'!! They're as irritatin' as them stray cats comin' around a-beggin' 'n a-stealin' and a-poopin' and a-peeun. GIT, gawl durnit!!

Peace out, man...

[Old-N-Feeble]

Peace out? Hell, I am PO-ed, boy!!:D

[Vaughn]

Keep it cool, bro...just become one with the fish...

[rdenney]

There's no "thar" in southeast Texas, you can be sure of that. That thar accent is in West Texas, where those little dogies are. No dogies down 'round Ann-yoo-ack, either. Tsall rahss farmers down that way.

The rhytm is different, too. In Anahuac, it would be "Wess Taixes", while in West Texas, they would have more of a Weeeeest Teeeeexus draaaaaaaaaawl.

I grew up in Houston, completely accentless, of course. Actually, you can drop me anywhere and I'll pick up the accent pretty quickly. My last trip to Lon Gisland had me saying "gahead" within a day. My trip to Baaastin two weeks ago was a bridge too far, however, though I do know how to paaak the caaaah in the garaaaadge after returning from Staaaaah Maaaaaket.

The British complain about Americans but refuse to narrow it down. I would submit that American accents differ as much as Yorkshire vs. London's east side (is there such a thing as Cockney any more?), and it surprises me that those two breeds can occupy any land where people think they own the rights to the language.

Rick "Yorkshire is a LOT closer to London's east side than Lubbock is to Beaumont" Denney

[rdenney]

Nope... but ya'll got all them durned yupees with their danged dee-ess-ell-arrz a-pointin' and a-chimpin' and a-shootin' agin an' agin'!! They're as irritatin' as them stray cats comin' around a-beggin' an' a-stealin' an' a-poopin' an' a-peeun. GIT, gawl durnit!!

Now you are channeling Seldom Seen Smith, of a rural (and now slightly damp) town in southern Utah.

Rick "just finished this years required run through Abbeyville" Denney

[Steve Smith]

We don't have accents in England. Americans who wonder what we sound like only have to watch the film Mary Poppins and listen to Dick Van Dyke's character to see what I mean.


Steve.

[Drew Wiley]

I've about had it with that English propriety thing... I still have to get thru the second
half of the Barry Lyndon DVD tonite. Just despicable ... folks going around shooting each
other due to honor. At least here in America we can shoot people at random because the
Second Amendment tell us to. Suppose in Texas they skin and eat them too... but that's
not really America.

[Old-N-Feeble]

We Texans only shoot Yankees, Californians and DC folk. The rest we can tolerate. Stay on your own side of the fence yonder and you'll be okay. And what is a Californian doing talking about the 2a anyway?:p

[Drew Wiley]

Got my first rifle when I was six. First thing you did in woodshop in 7th grade was learn to
make a pickup gun rack. Maybe you only know about that part of Calif like where I live now. Guns are mostly a gangbanger/drugdealer nuisance around here. But Calif is a big place. We are fairly open to immigrants from third world countries, even Texas. There are
other significant advances in civil behavior here too. For instance, we have legal bag limits
on the number of software yuppies and digital engineers one can shoot in a day. It's an
important amenity to make certain the next generation will still have something to hunt.
But you Texans probably call that Environmentalism.

[jb7]

Coincidentally, I'll be visiting Texas in a few weeks time-
Austin, Fredricksburg, and Lexington are on the itinerary-
I'll have some sort of camera with me too, I haven't decided yet which big one to take-
but the Point and Shoot is the most sensible for travel-
Any recommendations for things to see that aren't too far off that route?

Anyone have any tips for avoiding getting shot, whilst managing to stay off Death Row?
And maybe, based on information gleaned from this thread, a recommendation for a good phrase book?

[Old-N-Feeble]

Austin is full of politicians and our own Texas-branded yuppies. Other than that, it's nice.

Lexington... I don't know.

Fredericksberg is a nice interesting Hill Country town.

I don't get out much so I can be of no more help than that. We have plenty 'o fightin' Irish here. Ya'll are welcome. Just try not to get in a brawl with the German crowd over who makes better beer.:)

[Old-N-Feeble]

Drew... I guess if ya'll are accommodating enough to allow us Texans through we can do the same for you West Coast folks. Peace, brother.;)