Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Digital/chemical=CD/vinyl? (non-OM)

Subject: Re: [OM] Digital/chemical=CD/vinyl? (non-OM)
From: Dave Haynie <dhaynie@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 11:25:29 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 09:29:39 EST, MorrisMini@xxxxxxx jammed all night, and by 
sunrise was overheard remarking:

> Just a thought about all the digital listings recently.  I am in the midst of
> setting up a basement chemical darkroom and was struck by the thought I might
> be investing in a dinosaur.  It seems similar to the audiophile's dilemma of
> going with CD's (which are getting the thrust of consumer-driven product R&D
> improvements), or spending big bucks on the fine turntable and equipment to
> play vinyl, which is not as readily available. 

I'm not sure it's a fair comparison, for several reasons. First of all,
in the audio realm, CDs immediately delivered the potential for better
sound than all but the best audiophile-quality systems could render. And
that, only from select media. True, there are enough folks who can tell
the difference to create a market for $8000 turntables and expensive
direct to master recordings and other stuff -- though the audiophile
world isn't necessarily without a healthy dose of religion (he says,
with a toe in the studio recording world); they're not looking for
reproduction accuracy as much as certain features that may also
include accurate reproduction.

In photography, for one, digital is already upon us, and yet, it's not a
replacement for chemical yet -- any $80 35mm snapshooter can produce a
better image than any $800 digital. Today, that probably won't always be
true. The question here isn't one of analog vs. digital, which has a
pretty well-defined set of tradeoffs, but one of chemical vs. digital.
It's impossible to say that, eventually, digital won't match the range
of resolution and color that we get with the chemical processes. But they
have had a 100-or-so-year head start.

> As time goes on, certainly the differences will
> diminish to the point of making it a personal preference as to which course to
> follow.  Or will it?

On the printing rather than taking side, this isn't even really a new
argument -- it's chemical printing versus other printing processes (dye,
ink, etc). We've had posters and lithographs, etc. for years. It's only
become an issue to photographers because of the rapid growth of
good-quality consumer printing processes. Which, of course, are driven
by digital manipulation capabilities impossible in the darkroom.

It's not impossible the question needs to be finally answered. Ink printing
will evolve to be close enough to a photographic process so that most
won't care. Chemical printing can driven by computer (that silly
Poloroid "printer" does exactly this, and while you don't necessarily
want a 3x3 Poloroid, how about something similar exposing 16x20 Cibachromes,
or whatever.

> The experience of being in the dimmed atmosphere of a darkroom watching images
> emerge like magic in the developer tray is a womb-like comfort unlikely to be
> duplicated by any computer session.  Or is it??

I actually have watched my Canon printer lay down one color band after
another. Interesting, but not even close to the darkroom experience. 

> Will a fine chemical print always be "better" than a digitized wonder? 

At times, a fine chemical print may well BE, also, a digitized wonder.
Most real advances combine the best of several worlds of experience.

> I have invested a fair amount of money in a good sound system that is geared
> to virtually all CD input.  Being a musican, I can tell the difference between
> vinyl and CD, but just can't justify the inconvenience, cost, and limited
> availability of vinyl. 

Indeed -- I could never afford a turntable and special disc pressings
that would outperform by CD player. I have some photographs on my walls,
some paintings, and some lithographs (made of both original sources). I
know I was never as good at photo editing and retouching in the darkroom
as I am on a computer; it's not just the tools, it's the methodology --
drawing and painting metaphores always worked better for me than playing
with light, I need the immediate feedback, I like the feel of using a
brush or pencil or airbrush. Others would want a different interation,
but within reason, anything's possible on the computer -- the proper
purpose of the computer is to adapt to what you want (I'm not about to
claim we're that close, yet).

--
Dave Haynie  | V.P. Technology, Met@box Infonet, AG |  http://www.metabox.de
Be Dev #2024 | NB851 Powered! | Amiga 2000, 3000, 4000, PIOS One



< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz