Analog... or silver-based?

[Maris]

To keep it simple I just say photography.

To wind things up a bit I say I make pictures out of light-sensitive materials. That's the key, the "out of" bit. It's a unique and infallible test to distinguish photography from all other picture-making processes.

To really rev things up I say there is no such thing as "digital photography" (sic). To merely use the term is a de facto concession that the oxymoron might have real existence. It hasn't. I always say "digital picture-making" and so far in many articles, conversations, and lectures no one seems to be confused about what I mean.

Digital picture-making works quite differently to photography and I'm surprised that it is called by the same name. Perhaps the cause is the "language of the market-place" where things, cameras, software, printers, etc get called "photographic" to maximise sales to people who are ignorant of the difference and just want "pitchers".

Photography is a narrow and technically constrained way of making pictures but it seems to have extraordinary (unwarranted?) prestige. People who have never in their lives made a picture out of light-sensitive materials still crave the title photographer. And some of them get quite bellicose when challenged. It's almost as if they have been caught out in a lie.

[Worker 11811]

That's the reason I almost always use the term "digicam" when referring to those electronic devices which use mathematical algorithms to approximate a photograph. ;)

[artonpaper]

I have found myself saying chemical based photography lately.

[chuck94022]

Irony: Those fancy chips in digicams are fabricated using a traditional photographic process (photo lithography).

[kevs]

The thing is, the bloke down the road probably doesn't know that film uses silver. One could say 'silver-gelatin', I suppose, but I just say 'I use film', which is good enough for most folk to understand (to numpties it's 'fillum') - if they want more info they'll ask. If I were using plates or paper I'd probably still say 'film' because technically it's still true because the chemicals lie upon a thin film of gelatin or collodion.

I like the sound of 'numérique' though. If I had 'un camera numérique', I might be tempted to say 'It's a trigital camera. It uses zeroes, ones *and* twos! It's the next big thing and it's more betterer than digital!' Imagine the gasps of wonder and amazement! :-D

Cheers,
kevs.

[clayne]

I now use "chemical photography". I agree that analog is no good as a descriptor, but then again, silver is too confining as well.

I don't understand people's beef with analog.

In pro audio/recording, any non-digital process such as tape or cutting to vinyl is wholeheartedly referred to as analog. Film, silver, chemical development, etc. It's all analog photography.

If it's not using an A/D convertor to transfer one signal source to another, then it IS analog.

[Robert Ridyard]

The word analog rubs me the wrong way because it means that a process that has existed for more than a century and a half is now being named in opposition to something else. I suppose "film photography" is probably clearer to the average person in the street than analog or silver-based photography. In any event, to follow up on a previous poster's comment, fixer by any other name...

[jp498]

Analog versus digital far predates digital photography, so don't shun that sort of classification.

As a long time electronics hobbyist, analog is reasonable description of non-digital photography. Film is too (but film can also be part of a hybrid mix, but a subset of people here are the only ones in the whole world to whom that distinction matters).

A vs. D has been in telecom since the late 1950's in telecom (digital T-carrier lines could carry more traffic more distance without loss). Digital music wasn't common till sometime way later. Early computers could be analog or digital. In the lower levels of this, it's not one is inherently better, but one is different and meets a need a new way. People remember analog cell phones; the sound quality was much nicer than the digital ones that replaced them (for better battery life and security.) It's not just music that analog is applied to.

[landscapepics]

The stuff I buy and put in my camera is called "film". I don't buy rolls of analogue. So, "film photography" seems like an appropriate description to me. To name my preferred photographic method by reference to another, later, form, is like expecting a classical musician to call themselves a "non-popular" musician, to signify they don't play "pop music".

[clayne]

The stuff I buy and put in my camera is called "film". I don't buy rolls of analogue. So, "film photography" seems like an appropriate description to me. To name my preferred photographic method by reference to another, later, form, is like expecting a classical musician to call themselves a "non-popular" musician, to signify they don't play "pop music".

Okay so running with this we would call digital cameras instead "sensor cameras?" Seems quite specific doesn't it? Yes you don't buy rolls of analog, you buy film that is analog. Implementation vs method.

Analog photography - I have zero issue with it. Further defining what kind within there (film, plate, cyano, etc) is perfectly fine just the same as people talking about their CMOS and CCD sensors.

[kb3lms]

Personally, I kind of like "analog". But, then again, I'm a nerdy engineer. AFAIK I'm analog, probably the vacuum tube variety.:p

Reality is, most of the people I run into in the real world have no idea what analog means. Most of 'em don't know what digital really means either other than that they don't have to send film out to be developed.

Usually I tell people I'm shooting film or if they are old enough to be used to film I tell them I am going "old school" today. There's usually two responses to that lately: one, "I didn't know you could still get film, I heard Kodak went out of business" or two, "I still have my old <insert brand here> film camera in the closet, do you wanna buy it off me?" LOL!!!!!!

[ME Super]

Until you get down to the quantum level, all electronic circuits are analog!

Since light and matter exist on a quantum level, all photography is digital. Light and matter exist on a macro-scale as well, so it's also all analog.

Truthfully, your hard drive stores files using magnetic storage, which when passed by a coil of wire induces an analog voltage. It's only the pattern of the storage that represents numbers. So even the phrase "digitally stored pictures" isn't quite accurate either, as it is converted from an analog form to something that represents a number. Also certain digital circuits are really tri-state circuits, not binary. They have a "zero" voltage, a "one" voltage, and a third state called "High Impedance."

Yeah my Electrical Engineering background is coming through. :confused:

Most people understand both "film photography" and "analog photography" to mean non-digital capture and storage.

ME Super

[zumbido]

Wow.

[clayne]

Until you get down to the quantum level, all electronic circuits are analog!

Since light and matter exist on a quantum level, all photography is digital. Light and matter exist on a macro-scale as well, so it's also all analog.


So how do express the difference, theory-wise, in analog saturation vs digital clipping? There is a distinct physical aspect going on there - and perhaps if sensor sampling is the ultimate limiter, then yes, CMOS/CCDs are similar, but if they themselves are the limiter, then no, it's not the same thing - regardless of the fact that we're all made up of atoms.

[zumbido]

"Analog" is a clumsy term whose dictionary definition doesn't actually, technically, apply to anything that the word was coined to describe. But it's useful because everyone more or less agrees on what it's supposed to represent. What a novel idea, using words to make communication easier instead of more difficult.

[chuck94022]

My less serious posts notwithstanding, my hobby is photography. When people ask what I'm doing, I say I'm taking pictures. I don't "capture images". I don't do (film/analog/digital) photography. If they ask me what kind of camera I'm using, I say it is a 35mm or medium format or large format camera. If they ask more, I'll say more. I'll talk their ears off if they let me. If they say "you're using film?" I'll smile and get into the wonders of film with them.

I actually don't know when I would ever say "analog" to a person in the street.

The questions I hear most are: "You're using film?", "where do you find film here?", and "Are there still places to get film developed around here?"

I think the most useful place for the word "analog" is right here, in this forum, among the cognoscenti, allowing us to differentiate this place from our sister site.

[EASmithV]

I like to call it Argentic Photography.

[John Austin]

What a frayed and knotty thread this is

John

[ME Super]

So how do express the difference, theory-wise, in analog saturation vs digital clipping? There is a distinct physical aspect going on there - and perhaps if sensor sampling is the ultimate limiter, then yes, CMOS/CCDs are similar, but if they themselves are the limiter, then no, it's not the same thing - regardless of the fact that we're all made up of atoms.

I would've responded to this last night but by the time I saw it, I was too tired to respond, so waited until this morning.

Analog saturation (like digital) comes into play when you enter into a situation in which either (a) mechanical limits are exceeded, or (b) the output of a circuit should exceed the supply voltage. An example of the former would be an amp which is trying to drive a speaker to play audio beyond the maximum amplitude which the speaker was designed for - the volume is turned up too high for the speaker and you get distortion.

An example of the latter is an operational amplifier (op amp). Suppose we have an op amp with supply voltages of +5V and -5V. Further, let's suppose it is connected in such a way that it has a gain of -10 (I'm using it in an inverting configuration as the math is simpler). It will have a linear response range for input voltages between -0.5V and +0.5V. For input voltages outside of this range, it saturates at the supply voltage. The voltage at which saturation occurs can be increased (to a point, I think it's +/- 18V) simply by increasing the supply voltage.

I suspect that CMOS/CCD sensors operate in a similar fashion, but having not worked with them I'm not entirely sure. I do know that A-to-D circuits have a similar problem as the op amps, but are further limited by the number of bits in the output of the circuit. Further, some A-to-D circuits are simply a D-to-A circuit with a counter and a voltage comparing circuit in them. Add to this that a CMOS/CCD sensor will probably have some sort of amplifier attached to it to bring the voltages up to something easier to convert to a numeric representation, which will have the same sort of saturation limits as the previously mentioned op amp.

I hope this answered your question.
ME Super

[David Brown]

Wow.

Well said ...