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

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#51

Post by beowulfey »

ferongr wrote: post #35
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…

>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 century music would lose its edge if it were printed to tape and pressed to vinyl. There's nothing preventing audio engineers from introducing harmonic distortion, wow, flutter, pops and ticks, reduced channel separation or equalizing a CD master differently. There's…

CDs are inferior to vinyl in album art quality, and the size of posters that can be included with the record. From a purely physical perspective, I prefer buying vinyl.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#52

Post by ChuckMcM »

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?

" 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."

That is why, the grand parent has an emotional attachment to the memories of making prints in their garage, and someone has made a toy which will give someone a "photography like experience" (sort of like an "Easy Bake" Oven gives you a cooking experience) and they cry inside over the cartoon like experience of something that was so transformative in their life. It expresses as hate.

When they put in an escalator on Mt. Everest for the last pitch, when you "run a marathon" in virtual reality, or when you replace all the chemicals in a chemistry set with water. Basically if you take an experience that someone had, and make it accessible by reducing the challenge and/or fidelity you will invoke this reaction on people whose emotional enjoyment of their memories is the challenge or fidelity.

That said, I don't think it will be all that successful. We were quite successful helping folks enjoy analog photography with light sensitive paper and pin hole cameras. Even contact prints of leaves or insects can give you a sense of wonder. This seems like it will be much more expensive than that without much in the way of additional depth so the value proposition is effectively lower.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#53

Post by sp332 »

luscious wrote: post #5

because your time is worth less than your money. we are fully descended into the first level of mediocrity. I think I must be getting time-trolled. People come up with ideas to deliver me 5 minutes of hate on a Monday morning. Let's put together cheap things to waste massive amounts of time in the pursuit of crap, disposable techno-folk-art. Thank goodness the bombing starts right after football kicks into high gear.

I guess I'd better stay at work 15 hours a day, to make sure I'm being productive. Heaven forbid I waste time trying to make my own, low-grade fun at home. I'll just buy high-quality fun by the crate on Amazon.

The end result of the photo is not the point here. No one is saying that the results are good quality! But it's fun to make things like this.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#54

Post by sp332 »

moron4hire wrote: post #15

Who is this for? Any serious photographer would not want this as the results are going to be complete crap. Any casual photographer would not want this because it does nothing to get their shitty photos onto Facebook. The only people who would like this would be pseudo-intellectual hipsters who think they are "keeping it old school". This is a scene straight out of Portlandia. Let's open an "artisanal" cupcake shop t…

If you can't relate, that's fine. Don't buy it! But your lack of empathy doesn't mean you get to make fun of people who feel differently from you.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#55

Post by sp332 »

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.

You're right, we should immediately ban kids from playing with crayons because they are incapable of making good art. It's a total waste of our nation's colored wax resources!

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#56

Post by sp332 »

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 not just go out and get a real enlarger, a real film camera and use real negative film?

Well I can store thousands of photos on a microsd card and decide later which ones I want to put on paper. Film is much less flexible that way.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#58

Post by jlgreco »

beowulfey wrote: post #51
ferongr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 century music would lose its edge if it were printed to tape and pressed to vinyl. There's nothing preventing audio engineers from introducing harmonic distortion, wow, flutter, pops and ticks, reduced channel separation or equalizing a CD master differently. There's…

CDs are inferior to vinyl in album art quality, and the size of posters that can be included with the record. From a purely physical perspective, I prefer buying vinyl.

Something that doesn't get much mention is the shear weight of a decent vinyl collection. I helped a friend move his collection of several thousand records across the city a few months ago and, despite being a fairly fit guy, it was backbreaking. I was actually slightly concerned that his shelves would punch holes in his floor.

I think perhaps expectations for what a standard size music collection have changed as music media has become lighter and lighter.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#59

Post by ctdonath »

luscious wrote: post #34
ctdonath wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Strange how much human progress & accomplishment comes from contemplation of the irrelevant." - Scott Kim

"Online quotes are vacant appeals to authority. I wish they would stop doing it to me." - Scott Kim Such a quote is not a talisman. Focusing on the good coming from irrelevant pursuits is confirmation bias and applying such a quote broadly is a slacker's crutch. Let's look at all the semi-self-serious stoners, punks, drunks, libertarians, etc. contemplating the irrelevant... accomplishments? Only if we want to say "d…

Well excuse me for reiterating and crediting a concise appealing statement of a notion I share. I quote not as a talisman, but as making a point without reinventing the verbiage for it. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone on this site that the reference to "irrelevant" activities was not celebrating harmful behavior.

You're seriously equating "retro home photo printing" with "stoners, punks & drunks" just because it's "irrelevant"? Really? Is the difference not obvious? Do I really have to spell it out?

BTW: the USA was created by a bunch of libertarians.

Re: Analog photography is dead. Long live analog photography

#60

Post by plg »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #52
bambax wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? " 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." That is why, the grand parent has an emotional attachment to the memories of making prints in their garage, and someone has made a toy which will give someone a "photography like experience" (sort of like an "Easy Bake" Oven gives you a cooking experience) and they cry i…

what chuck said
Post reply on HN