Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

infinum.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 66 posts

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#21

Post by adcoelho »

bigdubs wrote: post #19

Not commenting on the article, just want to comment on the title for a sec. "The King is dead, long live the king!" is a special phrase used only when a ruler is dead and there is an immediate and available heir to assume the throne. It implies uninterrupted line of accession. "Analog photography is dead, long live analog photography" is not a correct usage of this phrase. A better way to phrase it would be : "Photog…

But the article itself is about a specific characteristic of analog photography. The old way is dead in some aspects but through the usage of new technologies(in this case smartphones) it can live on with its nuances. Its about the preservation of analog photography and not photography as a whole.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#22

Post by mbrock »

JonnieCache wrote: post #18
nwh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the obsession with vinyl records "sounding warmer".

They do sound warmer. This is undisputed. Same applies (even more) to magnetic recording tape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion#Harmonic_distortion As the word "distortion" in that link implies, where audiophiles go wrong is confusing "nicer" with "better." 70s dub-reggae records and the like would undoubtably sound worse if they were recorded straight to digital and pressed to CD. Similarly, lots of 21st cen…

But records aren't typically mastered to sound best on neutral equipment, since most people don't use monitor speakers or neutral amplifiers. Engineers use high quality neutral systems when mixing, but only because they're predictable and of high quality. They optimize for the typical systems of their target audience, mostly, no?

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#23

Post by HPLovecraft »

ebbv wrote: post #16

What a dumb idea. There is no reason to do this other than it can be done, which is not a good reason. This is like trying to make a gourmet sandwich out of a Hot Pocket.

lol: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hot-pockets-gourmet...

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#24

Post by phillmv »

bambax wrote: post #11
plg wrote: post #8

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen ... speaking as someone who used to spend hours and hours as a kid in the 1980s in our garage, making prints in our home-made darkroom. If one is already going to go to the trouble of printing on photographic paper in a darkroom, then why not just go out and get a real enlarger, a real film camera and use real negative film? The quality will be so much better. Also y…

Why the hate? I too used to make my own prints, not at home since we didn't have the equipment or a spare room that could be darken, but at school. I still have lots of paper from that time -- certainly useless by now. I think this is kind of cool though; the big difference with a real film camera is that you get to do it picture by picture. On a film camera you have to expose a whole roll of film, then process it, t…

>Why the hate?

Well, it's not even going to give you the same kind of resolution the actual photo is stored at! You're taking a downsampled analog representation (the light coming off the screen) of an image and further reducing the quality by enlarging it, all the while using fairly poisonous chemicals.

>Will the quality be a little crappy? Probably. But it's a toy! What's wrong with toys? Would you complain that your kid's toy car doesn't have a real gas-powered engine?

Ah, touché. It's easy to be grumpy when your own enlarger has been collecting dust for years…

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#25

Post by lttlrck »

pmelendez wrote: post #17

Wow, A casual reader might get confused with these comments and think that HN means Haters News. Here we have a product that a curious person (like myself) interested in learning how photography used to work would buy in a heartbeat, and still the top three comments (as I write) are " Who is this for?", "This is so goddam stupid." and "That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen". If these guys are doing this…

Right! If nothing else this is a couple of hours of fun mucking around with optics and chemicals. What's not to like? This is the kind of stuff I would have loved to try when I was a kid. Even now, if I had the ingredients lying around I'd probably give it a shot, who cares if the results are rubbish?

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#26

Post by crististm »

JonnieCache wrote: post #18
nwh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the obsession with vinyl records "sounding warmer".

They do sound warmer. This is undisputed. Same applies (even more) to magnetic recording tape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion#Harmonic_distortion As the word "distortion" in that link implies, where audiophiles go wrong is confusing "nicer" with "better." 70s dub-reggae records and the like would undoubtably sound worse if they were recorded straight to digital and pressed to CD. Similarly, lots of 21st cen…

21st century music is beyond loud. Is as loud as the medium allows it. You can't imagine how loud it is. There is no silence in this music. Every microsecond of it is recorded as if there are no bits in the quiet end of the loudness range.

This is one important reason why the music on vinyl sounds nicer. Not because of the harmonics, but because of the mastering. The medium does not allow very high dynamics and you need to compromise.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#29

Post by JonnieCache »

crististm wrote: post #26
JonnieCache wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do sound warmer. This is undisputed. Same applies (even more) to magnetic recording tape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion#Harmonic_distortion As the word "distortion" in that link implies, where audiophiles go wrong is confusing "nicer" with "better." 70s dub-reggae records and the like would undoubtably sound worse if they were recorded straight to digital and pressed to CD. Similarly, lots of 21st cen…

21st century music is beyond loud. Is as loud as the medium allows it. You can't imagine how loud it is. There is no silence in this music. Every microsecond of it is recorded as if there are no bits in the quiet end of the loudness range. This is one important reason why the music on vinyl sounds nicer. Not because of the harmonics, but because of the mastering. The medium does not allow very high dynamics and you n…

I agree with you that a lot of modern music (especially pop) is overcompressed. But the loudness war is not as simple as people would have you believe. It really depends on how you calculate RMS: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm

Also, like I said above, it's about conveying the intention of the artist. While that recent metallica album sounded like shit and might have been better if it were mastered for vinyl, the wax pressing of the below-linked record sounds boring and lifeless because it lacks the downloadable version's obscene dynamic range:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JWx_ukdUbM

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#30

Post by gregsq »

mbrock wrote: post #22
JonnieCache wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do sound warmer. This is undisputed. Same applies (even more) to magnetic recording tape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion#Harmonic_distortion As the word "distortion" in that link implies, where audiophiles go wrong is confusing "nicer" with "better." 70s dub-reggae records and the like would undoubtably sound worse if they were recorded straight to digital and pressed to CD. Similarly, lots of 21st cen…

But records aren't typically mastered to sound best on neutral equipment, since most people don't use monitor speakers or neutral amplifiers. Engineers use high quality neutral systems when mixing, but only because they're predictable and of high quality. They optimize for the typical systems of their target audience, mostly, no?

Yes, esoteric or 'accurate' sound reproduction equipment isn't preferred. For example, the famous Yamaha NS10 loudspeaker used for sound mixing is not a speaker that a music listener can bear for very long. Its tiring. But they are very useful for understanding how a recording will sound on televisions, radios, iPods and other common playback devices.

The idea is is that if you can make a mix sound good through them, they'll satisfy as a general purpose sound product.

Post reply on HN