Of indirect interest to those making coin and medal photos 0

[RWB]

From the BBC:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240426-why-we-continue-to-embrace-analogue-tech

The photo technology is very weak, but the ideas are not.

[Henri Charriere]

That's all well and good.

Now, on to the more important stuff...

a).  Does this vindicate our venerable globe-trotter @VKurtB and his old-school vintage Speed Graphic and the rest of his repertoire?

b).  Enquiring minds want to know, too, if viewers can expect a change of heart, publicly expressed, on your inflexible, ironclad stance on fluorescent vs incandescent lighting.  🤣

Edited April 29 by Henri Charriere
Spiffy up the content a bit.

[VKurtB]

On 4/28/2024 at 7:35 PM, Henri Charriere said:

That's all well and good.

Now, on to the more important stuff...

a).  Does this vindicate our venerable globe-trotter @VKurtB and his old-school vintage Speed Graphic and the rest of his repertoire?

b).  Enquiring minds want to know, too, if viewers can expect a change of heart, publicly expressed, on your inflexible, ironclad stance on fluorescent vs incandescent lighting.  🤣

My Speed Graphic is in my sister’s home in Pennsylvania. My view camera is a Cambo, and is about 15 feet away as I type this. 

[VKurtB]

The best part of the BBC article is this headline:

“Digital technology is de-skilling us”

Amen.

[RWB]

"Vindication" is not necessary. VKurtB's photo comments have been consistently accurate and reliable. Further, an analog recording (mag tape, optical turntable - sound; silver halide emulsion - image, etc.) preserves data that is much closer to the original than any digital system.... Limitations are physical not a product of arbitrary sampling. A practical outcome is that an analog recording retains far more information than a digital recording and includes a much wider usable dynamic range than digital. A few years ago NASA went back to its original film of lunar photos and discovered that there was a lot more highlight and shadow detail than in its modern digital images of the same surface features. The entire project plan had to be revised so that the "new" old data could be accurately captured. Today, we think of digital grayscale images as either 8-bit or 12-bit per pixel, but NARA had to use 48-bit grayscale to get acceptable results.

I have B&W coin photos made back in the 1960s that have more detail than anything I can do today with a DSLR.

[VKurtB]

On 5/1/2024 at 1:10 PM, RWB said:

"Vindication" is not necessary. VKurtB's photo comments have been consistently accurate and reliable. Further, an analog recording (mag tape, optical turntable - sound; silver halide emulsion - image, etc.) preserves data that is much closer to the original than any digital system.... Limitations are physical not a product of arbitrary sampling. A practical outcome is that an analog recording retains far more information than a digital recording and includes a much wider usable dynamic range than digital. A few years ago NASA went back to its original film of lunar photos and discovered that there was a lot more highlight and shadow detail than in its modern digital images of the same surface features. The entire project plan had to be revised so that the "new" old data could be accurately captured. Today, we think of digital grayscale images as either 8-bit or 12-bit per pixel, but NARA had to use 48-bit grayscale to get acceptable results.

I have B&W coin photos made back in the 1960s that have more detail than anything I can do today with a DSLR.

My father was a Hasselblad dealer during those years, and we were given Apollo 11 8x10’s from original NASA 70mm film negatives. Amazing stuff.