Andrew wrote:
All these arguments remind me of the religious tirades about vinyl records
versus compact discs when they first came out. A lot of "mine's bigger
than yours". Yes, *the best made record* on the *best made turntable*
could possibly sound better then the then-available compact disc
technology, but that was enough for some folks. There was a lot of "better
rendition", "rounder sound", etc. Words that sounded a lot like an
oenophile.
people forget some of the details about that time, not pointing at you
Andrew, but the marketers of CDs pushed the fact that getting into CDs meant
no more pops, crackles or hiss. They were right, CD's did not do any of
those things, but by making those assertions the way they did they alluded
to a higher qualiy that simply wasn't there - quite a few enthusiastic
audiophiles, supporters of CDs found themselves highly unimpressed with the
sound the CDs produced and I believe there were more than a few CDs returned
to retailers in disgust - Not too different from when MP3s became core
commonly adopted and this new lossy format met criticism from folks used to
better. I don't think the purists went out of their way to find fault
straight away, music enthusiasts are keen to try anything new! But when
they hear things and found them lacking they went looking for reasons and
found them - valid reasons too.
Now Vinyl definately has faults, records suffer needle wear, they are easily
scratched, there are ranges of frequencies that don't reproduce well - but
when listened to through a system designed for records they sound great! In
a different life I was a classical orchestral musician, and I do love a well
produced record - but in my car? I'll stick with MP3s over CDs.. and these
days music is produced to sound good as MP3's, taking advantage of MP3's
dynamic range and response.
The same is true of photography. Is film better than digital? Possibly,
but now you need the best film technology money can (or can't) buy to
"beat" common digital technology. Can you do it? Sure. But even that, just
like the vinyl wars, won't last forever.
'better' is very subjective, we all agree on that. Which is better, an 8x10
or a minox? A Canon T90 or an SX-70? .. and film, is that 110 or 8x10?
Film definately has it's shortcomings, I don't think anyone here would
debate otherwise, but so too does digital . mathematically examining the
resolving power of the lenses and the sensor, there's no way some of these
cameras can resolve as well as they do - but they do - they show detail
where they cannot possibly see it! They've some very clever algorithms
doing some pretty neat stuff to fill in the gaps and make these digital pics
look better than they have any right to be. that's grand for pictorial
shooters, but others may not want such manipulation. Kinda like the next
gen cameras I saw when I hopped out of my time machine that 'fixed' faces
in-camera, removing spots and making everyone smile (pro tip, do NOT buy the
Cameron Diaz plugin.. seriously)
And really, the media isn't the message anyway, right?
well yes maybe no. My little point was standing out from the crowd is kinda
hard when everyone and their granny has a damned fine digital camera. Some
may trade on their name but they are the blessed few, and as to suggesting
that having a great eye should be sufficient, that's not proving to be the
case. People will consume photos for sure irrespective of their origin, but
I do not want my images 'consumed'.
I was talking more about the survival of photographers in these times. The
old masters in woodworking, pottery and painting are stilll reveared and
sought out by younger enthusiast- these keepers of the faith, protectors of
arcane knowledge. And people are generally pretty happy with paying hefty
prices for their works - works which mom and dad recognize immediately that
are beyond their skills. Stand on a street corner offering to take
someones portrait with an iphone and see how much work you can wrangle up.
now try it with a nice laquered wooden 4x5 ;)
k
