Vinyl and Film...What if..?
Keep in mind through out this that I still buy records and film- and I have like 8 really nice film cameras. Part of this is tongue in cheek, but also not.
Vinyl records are a thing today. One of the You Tube audiophile channels (cheapaudioman) said, about his own music consumption. "Yeah I buy vinyl, just for the expense and inconvenience."
Yes the album art is cool. I'll give you that and so is inhaling mildew and dust as you rummage through thousands of worthless scratched up records in search of that "diamond in the rough"
But unless you are tolerant of pops and clicks, dust and static are constant enemy. A super p.i.t.a. A new record today costs like 25-30 bucks. You can buy 3 months of streaming for that or 1 month of high Rez streaming. Or a ridiculous amount of thrift store cds. Vinyl is pretty tough to play in the car unless you rip it a cd.
Yes a perfect vinyl record on great table with a.great cart can sound terrific but so can a cd. But it does not sound better. In fact , in my opinion anything less than that to me sounds awful. Far more important is the simplest thing like where you place your speakers (usually optimum is totally inconvenient).I go to an audiophile show with hi-fi systems in the 6 figure mark. More than one I was fooled into thinking. record was playing when actually it was streaming.
some of my audiophile buddies...these guys have thousands of dollars into their systems, think about a $1500 cartridge (needle) or $500 for two 6 foot lengths of speaker wire...I rib them, "If digital came out first, there never would be vinyl!"
Imagine a world where digital came first and you walked into someone's office and proposed the idea of a rotating disc, in which a diamond stylus would glide thru grooves and from there you could make music. They would throw you out!
Could you say that about film? if digital photography came out first would there ever be film?
It's inconvenient, expensive, uses nasty chemicals that are bad for the environment, no EXIF data, and probably most people who shoot film today digitize it anyway. Unless you operate a wet dark room you are going to end up with a digital analog hybrid.
And really you could end up shooting a digital image and alter it in post to look like film so you probably could not tell them apart. When in reality everything done to make it look like film, in the time there was no digital would be considered a BAD thing. I don't remember anyone in the 70-'s or 80's saying, "wow look how grainy my photo is". It was more like..."Great photo Bob, too bad about that funky color cast, maybe they can fix that when they print".
The first time I saw teenagers flipping thru vinyl lps in Borders books I was flabbergasted. Now vinyl outsold all other physical media- namely cds for 3 years now. It's a pimple on the butt of streaming, but still.
With how great cellphones are today, and digital camera sales not so much, will we see a day when film really becomes a thing again? For sure it will have pimple on the butt status compared to phone cameras, but that would be interesting. Where the DSLR or mirrorless pretty much became a tool for specialized use.
Maybe an instant type film. With how great Fujifilm cameras are I read that their instant film is their either their highest profit maker or gross sales. Something like that.
I once borrowed a book from the Library called "Film is Not Dead" . I laughed because it reminded me of a quote by the late great Frank Zappa, "Jazz is not dead...It just smells funny" . Anybody who ever processed film knows that..."
"Film is not dead, it just smells funny"
Interesting thoughts, kankrat!
Here are my thoughts, media is subjective. Film has a look to it that's really hard to replicate much like records have a sound that is near impossible to replicate. People want to collect records for the same reason they want to shoot on film, the charm and appeal of analog.
I do collect records, very much the "mint" variety for the quality sound and warm, natural replication of the music. Digital has a way of being "loud" and "shouty" due to modern mastering, where older, analog pressings of albums still have the mastering that came out of the studio in almost all cases except some newer albums where they chose to press a digital master instead of an analog pressing.
Now where modern digital mastering of music can be loud and shouty I find that digital can be overly-sharp or overly-detailed. Sometimes the qualities of digital are it's own downfalls, we find too many flaws of the lenses or too many flaws of the sensor when the sensors hit 30-50MP. I've found a lot of this in my own photography with the K-1. The sensor is good, too good for it's own good. I find as I pixel peep some details get lost despite the number of pixels in the sensor, I find sometimes that there's just too much happening on pin-sharp lenses as well.
This is where I think film comes in, 35mm tends to have a softer, more subdued appearance. Not near as sharp as it's 35mm digital sensor full-frame counterparts (in almost all cases). And even medium format film, while being really incredibly detailed and full of image information still retains a certain softness and charm that can't be found as frequently in digital shots.
This is a really long-winded way of saying, to each their own, I think. Long live digital, long live analog!
So this is really deep! And yup I do digitize my film media using a scanner after I pay a local lab to develop my rolls. I think I find myself picking up my film camera, that I'm very particular about composition and metering. It definitely instills alot more discipline in my photography, and helps me to be a better photographer. I grew up in the 90s, so I missed it. My dad always shot family photos on a Minolta Freedom PnS and X-370, so for me personally I also love the nostalgia of being on a road trip exploring wit my Dad. For me it was before I had bills and financial obligations, when America was much less greedy with planned obsolescence, jobs weren't as outsourced, before social media with closer knit small town communities and family's, and cost of living was much more reasonable.
It's definitely alive in my age group, I'm 30 now, there's something satisfying about being patient and the process of making a photo on analog, that isn't always rewarding with our digital counterparts.
Quote from HeggenDazs on January 31, 2022, 5:12 pmInteresting thoughts, kankrat!
Here are my thoughts, media is subjective. Film has a look to it that's really hard to replicate much like records have a sound that is near impossible to replicate. People want to collect records for the same reason they want to shoot on film, the charm and appeal of analog.
I do collect records, very much the "mint" variety for the quality sound and warm, natural replication of the music. Digital has a way of being "loud" and "shouty" due to modern mastering, where older, analog pressings of albums still have the mastering that came out of the studio in almost all cases except some newer albums where they chose to press a digital master instead of an analog pressing.
Now where modern digital mastering of music can be loud and shouty I find that digital can be overly-sharp or overly-detailed. Sometimes the qualities of digital are it's own downfalls, we find too many flaws of the lenses or too many flaws of the sensor when the sensors hit 30-50MP. I've found a lot of this in my own photography with the K-1. The sensor is good, too good for it's own good. I find as I pixel peep some details get lost despite the number of pixels in the sensor, I find sometimes that there's just too much happening on pin-sharp lenses as well.
This is where I think film comes in, 35mm tends to have a softer, more subdued appearance. Not near as sharp as it's 35mm digital sensor full-frame counterparts (in almost all cases). And even medium format film, while being really incredibly detailed and full of image information still retains a certain softness and charm that can't be found as frequently in digital shots.
This is a really long-winded way of saying, to each their own, I think. Long live digital, long live analog!
Yeah, I think there are some interesting parallels between audio and photography. I don't know if "media" is subjective but art and aesthetics are. Yeah, people hear things differently for sure. But I've done enough smack-down comparisons with my nerd friends and I and some of these guys have ridiculous systems the difference between digital and analog is really, really marginal. What people call "digital glare" I think is just the system's components are too bright. The difference between my old Nelson Pass designed Adcom amps are night and day from this absolutely amazing Chinese tube amp I have. Now there is a real difference in warmth. What I hear from a kick-ass turntable is more detail, not less. Just like changing the cartridge/ phono preamp makes a difference changing the DAC from 1 digital source to the next makes such a huge difference it's ridiculous.
The most amazing audio experience I ever heard was a beat up, potato chip thin , crappy ass USA pressing of Stevie Ray Vaughan, Couldn't Stand the Weather. An album I am intimately familiar with. this was at the Focal (speakers) booth, The more it played, the more I was blown away. the most impressive part was "The Things that I used to do." If I closed my eyes it was if the speakers were gone and there was a 3D image of SRV. You could hear the pick hitting the strings, it gave me chills, this is with all the chattering yay-hoos talking. Who talks over SRV, I mean really.... LOL I made a recording with my iPhone SE and it sounded rather impressive over the car stereo. Now here the speakers were $20K for the pair and I don't know what kind of table it was but I am going to guess , based on the platter looked to be 50lbs (seriously) it costs a lot more than the speakers. Then I went home played that cd and rediscovered it's amazingness, just by moving my speakers around, Not every track on there sounds as good as others. it's all the recording.
Now I don't have gear like that. All my stuff is is "best bang for your buck , highly rated by Stereophile Magazine etc " circa late 80's early 90's. and I have some newer stuff from Schitt Audio and Grado. I would love to say , Hey swing by, if you are in Chicago but the big hold up is ...I don't have a. really great listening space. It's NEVER going sound as good as could.
here is some food for thought.,.
So when I was learning about turntables, basically direct drive tables, think Technics 1200 were for DJs and belt driven tables (like Thorens, Linn, SOTA, AR etc. ) . Then I saw people actually taking the Technics seriously.
So I started understanding the differences, and why arguably a DD might be a better choice , sonically at least. From a ease of use standpoint it's a clear winner.
I've heard descriptions of DD vs BD (often angry and animated) sound really similar to digital vs analog arguments.
Quote from SpruceBruce on January 31, 2022, 5:29 pmSo this is really deep! And yup I do digitize my film media using a scanner after I pay a local lab to develop my rolls. I think I find myself picking up my film camera, that I'm very particular about composition and metering. It definitely instills alot more discipline in my photography, and helps me to be a better photographer. I grew up in the 90s, so I missed it. My dad always shot family photos on a Minolta Freedom PnS and X-370, so for me personally I also love the nostalgia of being on a road trip exploring wit my Dad. For me it was before I had bills and financial obligations, when America was much less greedy with planned obsolescence, jobs weren't as outsourced, before social media with closer knit small town communities and family's, and cost of living was much more reasonable.
It's definitely alive in my age group, I'm 30 now, there's something satisfying about being patient and the process of making a photo on analog, that isn't always rewarding with our digital counterparts.
I noticed in the very few rolls of film I shot pretty much all the shots were keepers. But they should be since the film was in the camera for two years. 🙂 I have a roll of Kodak color film in my F80. It's currently"fermenting".
My 300mm should work with that camera I should try to shoot wildlife with it. That would be good for a laugh.
It's kind of funny looking at Nat Geo wildlife shots from the 80's - how underwhelming some of it is, compared to today. That's not fair some of is really great and it's a miracle they got it.
I follow the Ilford Instagram page, OMG some of the shots they post are flat out inspiring.
I think some folks may be inspired by all this vintage stuff because they never grew up with it, it's kind of novel and never had all the short comings. You had nothing else.
i grew up with a darkroom in high school. We were really spoiled rotten, with darkroom access and free film and paper (BW) We shot and processed every format up to 4X5. After i lost access to the darkroom photography wasn't as much fun just shooting color with no real abilty to edit. I shot a couple wedding as an assistant to a studio, and then a couple for poor friends- essentially for free. But other than that I kind of lost interest.
Then digital comes along and I get a DSLR and Photoshop elements - can you hear the halleluia choir?
At first I resisted digital (and autofocus LOL) till about '04 because I thought film looked better and it did, it had more dynamic range better color in print.
I think it was probably 2010 when digital really started looking amazing to me.
Blurting out random thoughs here (like an old guy) but also, there are photographers with different objectives.
Some are after ultra detail and realism and others more impressionistic. I am clearly on the realism spectrum.
There’s a phrase “worse is better,” which is meant to get people to pursue their projects despite perfectionism, but it also applies here. Sometimes the harder thing — or the less slick thing — is exactly what we want.
When all music crackled, digital was a revelation. Now everything’s digital, crackles are what we want.
Music and photography are experiences, not tools, for most of us. So we pick the interesting, different, difficult, engaging, nostalgic thing.
