Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,702   Posts: 1,482,654   Online: 646
      
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 60
  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Montreal
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    33
    Images
    30

    Analog... or silver-based?

    In the French-speaking world, traditional, non-digital photography is known as “photographie argentique”. The word “argentique” derives from the noun “argent”, which is the French word for silver. Thus, in French, one speaks of “argentique” (silver-based) and “numérique” (digital) photography. I have always thought that the digital/analog dichotomy refers to audio signals. Would it not be more appropriate to refer to analog photography as silver-based photography?

  2. #2
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,950
    Images
    148
    Well if your just referring to capture on film maybe but then subsequent analog prints could be alternative processes plat/palladium, iron based, etc.

    Ian

  3. #3
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,400
    Images
    2
    I now use "chemical photography". I agree that analog is no good as a descriptor, but then again, silver is too confining as well.

  4. #4
    ROL
    ROL is offline
    ROL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    688
    In my case yes. And I do. I never describe my processes, or indeed analog anything, as analog anywhere but here. IMO, the term analog has a very dated (as in the clock has run out), leaden and Luddite feel to it. In terms of the general public, many of whom no nothing of classical (silver–based) photography, terms I more generally prefer, I feel the term analog actually does a disservice to my own work and the photographic products of silver or alternative techniques.

  5. #5
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    2,910
    Images
    46
    My audio friends collect and treasure "acoustic" recordings.

  6. #6
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,555
    Images
    23
    I like to call myself a user of traditional silver based medium for image capturing.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum
    BTW: the big kid in my avatar is my hero, my son, who proudly serves us in the Navy. "SALUTE"

  7. #7
    E76
    E76 is offline
    E76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Instant Films
    Posts
    375
    Images
    13
    I prefer traditional photography as a broad descriptor, and refer to the medium (as you have) only when I'm being specific.

  8. #8
    andrew.roos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    375
    Images
    10
    I generally talk about "film photography". Although not a complete description, it is widely understood. Even the younger generation seems to know what film is.

  9. #9
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,618
    If it uses film it is called "photography." If it's digital it is called, "crap."
    It's much easier to keep things straight that way.

    I find that most people with digicams who fancy themselves as photographers will say things like, "Oh, I took one course on photography in college...," then they'll look at you like a Neanderthal when they see your Rolleiflex. Then, when you point out the red and green fringes around objects in digital pictures and explain how that is caused by the Bayer filter over the CCD chip and that there is no way to prevent that unless one buys a very expensive (multiple thousands of dollars) camera or unless the photographer knows how to use Photoshop which costs several hundred dollars to buy. At my last recollection, I don't believe Photoshop Elements, which many digital "photographers" buy, has the capability to remove that color fringing, at least not without some serious mucking around.

    You can sit down with a person and show them their own pictures (or better still, your pictures) how lens aberration and Bayer fringing affect a picture but they are either blind to it, they don't care or they are lying to protect their own feelings.

    Okay, the "digital = crap" thing I started off with was a joke... and I hope most of you figured that out.
    However, my illustration, here, is meant to show that, unless you are a traditionally trained photographer or unless you have had instruction by a traditionally trained teacher, it is likely that you have not learned to be critical of your own work in order to notice things like aberration or macroblocking and you probably have no idea what dynamic range means to a photograph.

    I know a few pro photographers who shoot digital 100% of the time, now, and they are really good artists and masters of their craft. However, they are all very critical of their work (and to a lesser degree, the work of others) and they all learned this by shooting photos with film.

    I believe it is difficult or even impossible to learn how to be a good photographer unless you have had at least a little experience shooting film. That's why I recommend to everybody who wants to learn photography... even people who think they want to shoot only digital... that they should spend at least one summer shooting with film. In almost every case, where a person has taken that advice, I have seen his or her photography skills increase exponentially. Maybe that person had the skill and inclination to become a good photographer regardless. Or, maybe, pushing people into traditional photography as a "primer" separates the men from the boys, so to speak but, in more than 90% of the cases where I know a person has learned at least some traditional photography, they have improved. (One of those people was my 12 year old nephew.)

    Most people who just want to snap pictures with a camera phone or a pocket digicam only want to view JPEGs on their computer screen. Those are the people who are the most troublesome. People who have taken the time and spent the money to buy a nice digicam are often more willing to listen for a short time.

    In any case, my standard response to anybody who tries to chide me about shooting photos with film is: "I bet I can take better pictures with an empty beer can and a roll of duct tape than you can with your $2,000 digicam."

    Haven't had anybody take me up on that bet to date but I think I still want to make a pinhole camera out of an empty beer can just for sh*ts and giggles, anyway.
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  10. #10
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,176
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Well if your just referring to capture on film maybe but then subsequent analog prints could be alternative processes plat/palladium, iron based, etc.

    Ian
    How about "heavy metal" photography?

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin