Originally Posted by Aristophanes
So....you mean the good old days weren't so good after all? Hey, in 50 years, these will be the good old days and someone will be writing up how wonderful it was to carry an iPhone in bed, while now it is permanently up our asses and transmitting directly into our brains. Big hug!
As an engineer who has to use a computer incessantly, all day long, I get this. What he says is 100% right on the money.
"In a sense, the digital world can only deal with things that can be quantified, says Milne, 38, who has an engineering background. "So things like experience, even spirituality and religion -- all that stuff that we can't push into a rational, logical framework, sort of drops off the map."
I just took a Fuji Instax of a group of anti-bullying students (in pink shirts) and gave them the print right there and then.
Gotta love analog.
Analog is superior to digital fundamentally because digital aways introduce some data loss by virtue of sampling. Analog is more fun than digital now because right now analog is not the norm. The norm always gets granted and thus we tend to get bored with it. When analog was the norm, it was not inferior is was just taken for granted. Now is the perfect time to enjoy analog and get the most fun and pleasure out of it. Especially if we can finally have access to top notch equipment for so little and then have wonderful results we could have dreamt about back in the day. So anyway you look at it, analog is cheaper, more fun, and more pleasurable than digital right now. Maybe in 10 or 20 years digital will be start giving as much fun but analog won't be anything less than it is now.
That is fundamentally untrue.
Originally Posted by Lionel1972
There is data loss in analog: visual audio, etc. This is clearly explained in the article about the lo-fi hiss on albums.
The losses in digital are by economic choice, as in data compression as network capable files are preferred over pure fidelity files. There is no limit to either as they are both just organizations of molecules. NASA's phenomenal photos from space are amalgamations of digital sensors across spectrums. We are finding new planets by the thousands because of digital sensors and their capacity that far exceeds what analog could ever do. The only limitation is the original sensing material. In this respect, sampling is a feature, not a bug.
Yes, analog is fun. What is irksome is if someone makes a crappy photo or film and people say it is crappy. But then the artists says to was made on 10 yer-old expired Tri-x, people swoon because of the process being some artificial purity that no sane filmmaker back in the day would ever do. Worship of the process is replacing real appreciation of the aesthetic, fulling a cult of the artist and not real critiques of their body of work. Making it precious to satisfy the artist's need for self-fulfilment (I can't afford a Red one) takes the fun right out of it.
Is a novel on a typewriter better than one crafted on a word processor? Can you tell the difference? How does Homer feel about that?
Do you know what is making a comeback? The abacus. That's cool. Would you trust the structural support of an F1 car to a formula derived on an abacus? Uh...no.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I didn't say that analog doesn't have any limitation and doesn't distort reality in its own way. As far as I know, on a molecular level, digital is still far behind what analog capture devices are capable of recording (Bayer filter for example). Weither you like it or not, analog is still much easier and more pleasant for the human brain to assimilate (think about how fatiguiing mp3 recordings are compared to hi-fi tube amp stuff). Even when you don't notice the difference, your physical body doesn't react the same to these different types of simulii. Proof is that in order to "improve" digital imagery, they now tend to introduce curves and grain to make it more pleasant to look at than the harsh binarity and linearity of digital images.
Some people appear happy creating art using older ways, perhaps they find it easier to articulate themselves with images rather than words. I won't judge a photographer by his sentences.
Art is not engineering, a photo created on film may be valid, a car designed on an abacus is not.
Some people write out their work by hand on paper and then pay for someone to type it onto a computer, that's how they work. Maybe others use type writers, perhaps staring at a screen kills their creativity, who knows, they work out what's best for them and it works for them. Writers are probably more articulate about this than photographers or engineers, at least I would hope so.
A spiritual connection to a process can indeed seem absurd. Especially to a rationalist. However, one of the great things about people is that they're all different and some really might do this spiritual thing - I don't know, but I do know that not everyone is like me.
My wife plays piano, a friend composes tunes using software. They both get a kick out of what they do but neither can understand the other's valorising of their machines. My wife in convinced that only a 'real' piano is a piano -she won't record her playing and edit it with software. My friend loves the potential of his computer and uploads screen grabs of his programs to facebook. I've yet to meet a sculptor who employs CAD/CAM.
Valorisation is every bit as modern as it is nostalgic.
"Ultimately it comes down to taste. It comes down to trying to expose yourself to the best things that humans have done and then try to bring those things in to what you're doing."
Spoken by he last guy in America who actually knew what the #@&* he was doing.
That's just, like, my opinion, man...
Hipsters make a virtue of technology and experiences they themselves need were a part of. It can be really interesting to see a generation explore history thoughtfully, but it can come across as self-indulgent shopping through someone else's history instead of confronting your own reality.
Originally Posted by MaximusM3
You can do what you want with your iPhone
I'm sure some sleep with their Leica's. On APUG there's sometimes a weird Olympus love-in going on.
Lots of digital cameras have no Bayer filter. Digital is rapidly catching up to analog's theoretical limitations and will pass soon enough. In fact, in scientific and turnkey instrumentation, it already has by substantial margins.
Originally Posted by Lionel1972
That does not mean analog is not fun. Mixing chemicals is fun. Photoshop is not.
Show the empirical proof relating to digital audio "fatigue". I have heard many lousy CD's that's for sure, including horrendous audio engineering in the race for "loud". I've also heard the same on vinyl, which has its own serious weaknesses in fidelity. I've heard terrible sound at live performances, including unplugged ones!