So where's the Analog in film photography?

[Koolzakukumba]

People invent fancy terms to hide bare facts of photography and gear fondling.
Personally I fondle both technology stacks yet realize it so call it whatever you want 😀

Perverted? 😀

 

[defconfunk]

(or 'analogue photography' if you are not into the whole brevity thing.)

Just to defend my choice of analogue, that's the English spelling. It's bad enough with my spell checker always giving me a hard time with "colour".
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/analogue

The point is, in case you missed it, that something which exists and hasn't changed has no need of a new description. It is the newcomer, in the shape of digital imaging, that needs to be differentiated. That has everything to do with logic and nothing to do with technology. Analogue (it's a 19th century French word so I'll stick with the proper spelling if you don't mind) photography is a redundant term.

So why do we have "Alternative process" photography? I mean, film based photography came along and stole the title Photography from its proper owners: emulsion coated plate and paper techniques! How dare film photography relegate its predecessors to "Alternative" 😛

(Yes, this thread has devolved into silliness, but hey, that's the internet for you).

 

[Godfrey]

That's an individual company's marketing decision and nothing to do with what we're talking about as you well know! 😀

It's the same concept. You're just being obstinate.

G

 

[Deardorff]

Ana logs are what the cat Ana leaves in the catbox.

"Portrait" and "Landscape" formats don't make sense either. Vertical or Horizontal do.

How many 'portrait format' landscapes do you see on magazine covers? Way more verticals than horizontals there.

Look at portraits from excellent photographers and you see a nice variety of vertical and horizontal compositions. Both with their own attraction.

Film Photographer makes sense. A friend also makes sense with "Pixelography".