the term analog

[Keith]

I wouldn't say 'term' ... more of an 'analogy' to me! :angel:

 

[JoeV]

For my taste, I prefer the term "Boolean" to digital, as it's a bit more mathematically precise. However, I still have not found a sufficiently precise term for what we refer to as film-based photography (other than the term "film-based photography"). The term "analog" is just too imprecise in terms of what's happening photo-chemically at the molecular level, and comes preloaded as the antithesis of "digital" (whatever that is).

In terms of what happens at the film plane, we could use the term "photo-chemical" to refer to film-based photography and "photo-electric" to refer to semiconductor-based photography.

"I just came back from vacation, where the majority of my photography was photo-electric, but I did some photo-chemical photography also, using my Olympus XA2." I think this will take some getting used to, the new terminology.

~Joe

 

[Richard C]

I have never understood how film, which contains lots of tiny but individual granules, can be described as analogue.

 

[t6un]

I have never understood how film, which contains lots of tiny but individual granules, can be described as analogue.

Just like magnetic tape? And anything composed of atoms? As long as they are measured, and not counted, it's "analog processing".
Actually, it's the processing, rather than medium, that makes the difference.


The term "film" isn't perfect either, since it leaves out glass plates and all the other analog techniques that predated it, and are still practiced.

 

[Photo_Smith]

because it has no discreet levels, it's continuous depending on exposure and development.
You can't represent it as one of two states, for instance colour film has up to four different records how would you make a binary model of that?

Once a grain has reached a threshold of being capable of development, exposure forms grain of varying sizes up to the maximum of the grain size.
In effect the density of that grain can also vary between 0.1 and say 4 density points, dye clouds in colour up to abour 2.5D.
Only under very limited circumstances could grain be considered digital or if we go the absurd it's there or not there binary representation.

 

[haempe]

Before the invention of color film all B/W photography was simply photography.
The term black and white photography is also a bit beside the track, actually it's in the most cases greyscale photography.

I have no problems with the term analog...

As Godfrey wrote: Life's too short.

 

[Rodchenko]

I'd much prefer if it retained its u and e.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I use "film" or "wet darkroom processes" to describe what I do when I'm shooting a non-digital camera.

 

[willie_901]

I have never understood how film, which contains lots of tiny but individual granules, can be described as analogue.

Not a bad point. After all the quantum mechanics model has discrete levels. Nothing exists between energy levels. There is nothing continuous in quantum mechanics.

At the same time, the film granules are too large to be conveniently modeled by Q.M.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Not a bad point. After all the quantum mechanics model has discrete levels. Nothing exists between energy levels. There is nothing continuous in quantum mechanics.

At the same time, the film granules are too large to be conveniently modeled by Q.M.

Add to that the fact that grain has no discrete levels but is capable of recording anything from 3 atoms of silver up to the full grain depending on how many photons hit it and the type of reduction used.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I've seen the term "Silver halide photography" used in books going back to the 1930s. Any takers for that?

 

[sevo]

I've seen the term "Silver halide photography" used in books going back to the 1930s. Any takers for that?

I haven't run across it that frequently in pre digital days - where I've seen it, it was either in photochemistry tutorials, or in books on reproduction and pre-press technologies, where non-silver processes (iron salt blueprint, azo dye and electrostatic) always had large market shares.

 

[icebear]

Meanings of words are just consensus. If you don't like the consensus, don't use the word, but isn't it sort of silly to complain that the rest of the world doesn't agree with your more enlightened opinion?

A good point but who defines "the rest of the world"?

There are various examples of language used without careful consideration of the actual meaning:
"Critique" is usually meant in a negative context, although it includes both ends, it can also be positive.
"Best of all times" is commonly referred to as until now but all times does include the future as well and not only the past.
"Gay" has changed it's meaning and got pretty narrow today.

If you stick to your preferred meaning or the "old" meaning, then there will be misunderstandings with the rest of the world as they moved on and adopted to the consensus. If that is always correct, doesn't really matter, language is pretty much democratic in this respect.

To the OP question:
I guess nobody using the term "analogue/analog" as opposed to digital photography, really cares too much about what is actually means or even would be able to describe it beyond "film vs sensor".

 

[valdas]

I've seen the term "Silver halide photography" used in books going back to the 1930s. Any takers for that?

Well, like I said before - French term "argentique" (which is an equivalent for film photography) is more or less the same (argent=silver). They use it very widely...

 

[Spanik]

While most here would know what "silver based", "chemical photography", "quantum-molecular light capture" or whatever you care to call it, means, I fear that 95% of the rest of the population wouldn't have a clue what you are talking about.

While you might not like the consensus, it at least means that other people know what you talk about. Maybe they'll avoid you because of it or might be interested in it but that's another issue.

Not a bad point. After all the quantum mechanics model has discrete levels. Nothing exists between energy levels. There is nothing continuous in quantum mechanics.

At the same time, the film granules are too large to be conveniently modeled by Q.M.

Energy levels aren't discreet, they are just regions with more probability to find an electron compared to other regions. Light capture is very much quantum mechanics defined. It is one of the first areas where it was well observed.

 

[unixrevolution]

Generations X and Y saw CDs give way to downloads, and know about LPs, but don't own them. They have seen floppy disks, no longer floppy, give way to Zip disks and then writeable CDs and DVDs and now accept the passing of the inboard disk reader/writer in their laptops. Under such circumstances the relegation of the long hegemony of film to the designation so generic as analog is fitting but repellant.

I am Gen-Y and I buy vinyl. I buy Lady GaGa on vinyl.

 

[clayne]

I have never understood how film, which contains lots of tiny but individual granules, can be described as analogue.

http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/2009/07/film_grain_is_b.html
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2007/10/chumps-and-clumps.html

Discussed to death already. Film is not binary or digital. Grain is an illusion.

 

[clayne]

The reason I think these type of threads get so much traction on the internet is because the internet is chock full of people who a: love to argue, b: black/white mentality - it's either this way or it isn't, c: control freak mentality which helps drives (b) and (a), d: love to measure/benchmark things religiously.

This is why one will see such a glut of discussions around things like "highest sampling rate", "highest megapixels", "clearest/crispest sound", "sharpest lens" whereas other concepts like "non-linear saturation" and "analog compression and how it affects dynamic range" turn up quite a bit less often. Why you ask? Because they can't be pinned down as easily - nor can they be benchmarked in the same "how high does it go?" fashion.

 

[msbarnes]

The reason I think these type of threads get so much traction on the internet is because the internet is chock full of people who a: love to argue, b: black/white mentality - it's either this way or it isn't, c: control freak mentality which helps drives (b) and (a), d: love to measure/benchmark things religiously.

This is why one will see such a glut of discussions around things like "highest sampling rate", "highest megapixels", "clearest/crispest sound", "sharpest lens" whereas other concepts like "non-linear saturation" and "analog compression and how it affects dynamic range" turn up quite a bit less often. Why you ask? Because they can't be pinned down as easily - nor can they be benchmarked in the same "how high does it go?" fashion.

The intention of this thread, atleast my intention, was to discuss the term analog in this context. Not really to convey my discontent with the consensus or to invalidate the word.

The idea that not all pre-digital cameras are film and that film can also mean video are two legitimate arguments that didn't come to my mind.

 

[clayne]

The intention of this thread, atleast my intention, was to discuss the term analog in this context. Not really to convey my discontent with the consensus or to invalidate the word.

The idea that not all pre-digital cameras are film and that film can also mean video are two legitimate arguments that didn't come to my mind.

Yes, and I understand that - and I was referring to the specifics of how the analog discussion usually goes and the points and myths that are typically brought up.

Did you search google before posting this because it's been discussed plenty of times before. It's even been beaten to death already on RFF:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82443

and here:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/23862-film-photography-analog.html
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum50/103168-analog-silver-based.html