Photography- Technology vs Old School - Answer first post 0

[VKurtB]

On 1/25/2023 at 11:25 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Why is FILM more "accurate" to the naked eye than a digital reproduction ?

Because it is pure. Light is bent by the optics to project onto the film. The film image does not get digitally processed nine ways from Sunday to make it look pretty to the untrained eye. It’s warts and all. The trick used to be preventing the warts in the first instance, not having them digitally removed by a digital dermatological surgeon. 

[VKurtB]

To me, my smartphone is a “good enough camera” for only one thing - touristy scenic shots, PERIOD! Any thing else needs something FAAAAR more advanced. I have that stuff. Film and digital. But it is a pain to set up. It’s worth it, but not every day. I have Nikons, Canons, Leicas, Hasselblads, and even a 4x5 view camera with all the tilts and shifts. I seldom want to shoot junk, and I seldom have the strength to shoot serious stuff. So I compromise. When I want to shoot stuff for The Numismatist, I take my Sony a6000 and a few lenses. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 1/25/2023 at 11:28 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

We've been taught that digital is "better" than analog (4K > Blu-Ray > DVD > S-VHS > VHS > OTA TV).

This is only partially true and is, at best, a gross oversimplification. You can never get more resolution than the original medium that was used to capture the footage. In nearly every case, every one of those digital and analog formats “threw away” resolution. Some more than others. Done correctly, and expensively, more resolution can be dragged out of 8mm movies from the 1950’s than from a S-VHS tape. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by VKurtB

[USAuPzlBxBob]

On 1/24/2023 at 5:07 PM, VKurtB said:

Some people take themselves AND this hobby just a notch or two too seriously. Take a large step back and notice how ridiculous ALL OF THIS is to regular people. It’s amazing!

I've shown my coins to very few people in person.  Their first (and only) question is always, "How much is this one worth?"

When I tell them how much they cost, they look at me with one of those rueful expressions of:  a fool and his money are soon parted.

[VKurtB]

On 1/25/2023 at 12:46 PM, USAuPzlBxBob said:

I've shown my coins to very few people in person.  Their first (and only) question is always, "How much is this one worth?"

When I tell them how much they cost, they look at me with one of those rueful expressions of:  a fool and his money are soon parted.

But some of these VERY SAME PEOPLE can watch a few YouTube videos and become convinced that a cent that has spent a week on a concrete pad at a truck stop is a valuable error coin. What matters to the uninitiated doesn’t matter to the knowledgeable and vice versa.  This is that kind of field. 

[RWB]

Present digital technology, which reduces everything to only 2 values "on or off" converts reality into an approximation. The original fidelity cannot be captured by throwing away data -- even if our ears or eyes cannot detect it under ordinary conditions. Further the utility of the discarded data is unknown...Maybe that background is all black; or maybe it isn't and there's a face lurking there.

A professional musician - say an orchestral conductor - can instantly tell a recording from live, and a digital recording from analog. To the trained ear or eye, the shortcomings of digital are obvious and extremely annoying -- but our primitive computers like it.

[VKurtB]

On 1/25/2023 at 6:09 PM, RWB said:

Present digital technology, which reduces everything to only 2 values "on or off" converts reality into an approximation. The original fidelity cannot be captured by throwing away data -- even if our ears or eyes cannot detect it under ordinary conditions. Further the utility of the discarded data is unknown...Maybe that background is all black; or maybe it isn't and there's a face lurking there.

A professional musician - say an orchestral conductor - can instantly tell a recording from live, and a digital recording from analog. To the trained ear or eye, the shortcomings of digital are obvious and extremely annoying -- but our primitive computers like it.

Even “good” vinyl pressings are positively discernible from digital recordings.  

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/25/2023 at 7:47 PM, VKurtB said:

Even “good” vinyl pressings are positively discernible from digital recordings.  

Yeah, I've heard that...hard to believe that a 1960's vinyl record might more accurately represent what The Beatles or The Rolling Stones actually sang 55 years ago than if you could go back in time and bring a digital recorder. .

[VKurtB]

On 1/25/2023 at 7:09 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yeah, I've heard that...hard to believe that a 1960's vinyl record might more accurately represent what The Beatles or The Rolling Stones actually sang 55 years ago than if you could go back in time and bring a digital recorder. .

Not sure that overamped rock recordings would make a big difference, but the Abbey Road studio did have great recorders. 

[VKurtB]

Digital EVERYTHING boils down to two things - 1) Meh, it’s good enough, and 2) Make it so more people can get passable results. It’s not about quality; it never has been; and it never will be. CD music is sampled at 44kHz. DAT tapes are/were at 48kHz. Both were chosen because “nobody needs anything higher”. Now HD audio samples at MUCH higher rates. Never believe computer guys. They’re always proven wrong eventually. 

Edited January 26, 2023 by VKurtB

[bsshog40]

On 1/26/2023 at 3:35 PM, VKurtB said:

Digital EVERYTHING boils down to two things - 1) Meh, it’s good enough, and 2) Make it so more people can get passable results. It’s not about quality; it never has been; and it never will be. CD music is sampled at 44kHz. DAT tapes are/were at 48kHz. Both were chosen because “nobody needs anything higher”. Now HD audio samples at MUCH higher rates. Never believe computer guys. They’re always proven wrong eventually. 

I still have my DAT tape from 91' when my band recorded a 45rpm back in the day. Lol

[WalterMatthews1]

On 1/24/2023 at 8:36 PM, Walkerfan said:

I don't know BUT....

I'm GUESSING that #1 was done with the phone.

Both are good.  

Interesting...the color variation of the two different styles.  Number 1 looks more YELLOW.  

Number 2 is definitely sharper.  

While technology offers convenience and instant results, traditional methods emphasize craftsmanship and a slower, more deliberate approach to image-making. For those embarking on the journey of dissertation writing, https://edubirdie.com/blog/how-to-structure-a-dissertation provides valuable insights into structuring a dissertation effectively. Just as the photography debate offers contrasting perspectives, Edubirdie's guide offers diverse strategies to approach dissertation writing, catering to individual preferences and needs.

agree with you

Edited April 1 by WalterMatthews1

[Rob’s Coins]

There is a reason why Ansel Adam’s photos are so crisp.  Large format negatives hold a lot of info.  Much more than modern 1” x 1” CCD.  Although It’s been a 10 years since I’ve researched the latest Nikons… every year they were getting a bit better.  Interesting how old school often beats new school.

[VKurtB]

On 4/1/2024 at 9:53 AM, WalterMatthews1 said:

agree with you

#2 LOOKS sharper, but it is artificial DIGITAL sharpening, which is done by outlining image areas with contrasting outlines. 

[leeg]

Mark Goodman's book on Numismatic Photography would be a great "buy."

[Henri Charriere]

On 1/25/2023 at 7:47 PM, VKurtB said:

Even “good” vinyl pressings are positively discernible from digital recordings.  

🐓:  Wait!  This thread is old!

Q.A.:  I know that.  Is it my fault I was marooned in a Siberian Gulag?  Two thoughts... 1-  Of course vinyls are discernible. Digital don't skip, do they? And 2-  Without vinyl, there never would have been the Wild Wonderful World of Rap.