Digital versus Analog?

I quite often see the term analog photography used in the context that analog is the opposite of or the precursor to

digital.

I don't believe there is or ever has been anything called analog photography. Digital is not the opposite of analog.

 

 

analog, noun: 1. Something that bears an analogy to something else: Surimi is marketed as an analogue of

crabmeat.

2. Biology An organ or structure that is similar in function to one in another kind of organism but is

of dissimilar evolutionary origin

3. Chemistry A structural derivative of a parent compound that often differs from it by a single

element.

 

adjective; 1. often analog Of, relating to, or being a device in which data are represented by continuously

variable, measurable, physical quantities, such as length, width, voltage, or pressure.

2. often analog Computer Science Of or relating to an analog computer.

 

 

If I am incorrect in my line of thinking please let me know. I realize that in Cell phones analog was the precursor to

digital, but I don't think there is a valid argument for this being the case with photography.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I do wonder though why you, or anyone would care?

Bob, I wasn't trying to start an argument, just something I have noticed that kind of got my mind to wondering. But as to why would anyone care, why care about anything? When I went to school they had a subject called vocabulary, did they do away with that or something?

You make something out of nothing. Analog, like in not digital. Problem solved.

Why not Chemical, like in not Digital? I didn't realize it was such a "sensitive" subject.

You have defined it yourself - <i>a device in which data are represented by continuously variable...</i>

<p>

The image on film is due to the variable opacity of dyes or colloidal silver in the emulsion. This density is a

continuously variable function of the cumulative exposure of the raw film to light, as illustrated in the characteristic

curve of the film or sensitive medium. While it is true that the particles are discrete, they are randomly sized and

distributed in space. The structure of "grain" in B&W film is complex - strings and clumps of minute silver crystals,

each about 0.5x2.0 microns in size. It is the clumps which we perceive as grain in the image. Dye clouds in color

film are chemically derived from the chemical reaction of dye bases and silver in the emulsion. Hence they are

random in size and distribution. The silver is later re-oxidized (bleached) and washed away (fixed).

<p>

A digital image can only assume discrete values, represented by numbers in the file. It is true that the charge or

voltage in the sensor is proportional to its cumulative exposure to light, the only representation of that value in the

output is digital. Furthermore, the cells in the sensor are in a uniform, fixed array.

<p>

In all likelihood, the term "analog" is used instead of film for its pejorative effect. If that offends you, then you get the

point :-)

You see there is a logical answer, thank you Edward, and no the term doesn't offend me in the manner that you describe. I was looking for a valid answer and I believe I got it. What is offensive is when you ask a question and get told, "why would you or anyone care", or "you make something out of nothing".

I tend to think of the word analog when discussing sound media. Things sure get mean if you toss that word into the photography area. I prefer to address film as a chemical process. The word analog just does not seem to apply here.

Curtis,

<p>

As a linguist, let me suggest not worrying about it. The answer to your question is an example of analogy in

language usage. In non-digital recording of sound, a pattern of variations in magnetism or electrical voltage

are analogous to the variations in air pressure that make up sound. People make a further analogy between what

happens in non-digital sound recording and non-digital photography. It allows them to extend the term "analogous"

to photography. It's fine as long as everyone understands what is meant.

<p>

In fact there is an analogy. Latent images on film are analogous

representations of a pattern of light. In black and white negatives, the greater the amount of light, the greater

the chemical effect on photographic film.

<p>

More important, language is not "logical." Whatever people begin to use is going to work for communication, and

that makes it correct. Why do "fat chance" and "slim chance" mean the same thing? Why do we call certain

lovely insects "butterflies?" They have nothing to do with butter. Why can you water a horse, but you can't milk

a cat? Why do we write "footnotes" and not "feetnote?" Why is the word "big" smaller than the word "small?"

<p>

Spelling in many languages doesn't make any sense. There is a famous spelling of the word "fish" which many

people attribute to the writer George Bernard Shaw.

According to Shaw, "fish" should be written as "ghoti."

<p>

"gh" as in "cough"<br>

"o" as in "women"<br>

"ti" as in "nation"<br>

<p>

Trust me, other languages are just as silly. Thinking about this is a nice diversion for a few minutes, but

trying to make language logical is not an achievable goal.

Everyone has made some good responses. I for one have seen in this digital age, that people want to classify everything that they can't put into the digital catagory as analog.

Hector, I liked your analogies of analogousness, I knew it was something like that.

This is a typical example of how languages change over time. (Why doesn't the whole world still speak one

language?) The vernacular usage of words is usually not specific like scientific or legal usages. Perhaps the

most obvious modern day change in meaning is one regrading sexual orientation. A century ago the word gay had no

sexual connotations, while today you have to explain a non-sexual usage.

 

Another word change, that has happened much fast and is probably far more familiar to users here than in the

general population is the word hacker. I used to be proud to be known as a hacker, but the first time it was used

toward me derogatorily was back in 1985 when I cracked open an encryption scheme a guy who had left the company

put in place. (I had just saved the company months of work, and then I got lambasted for being an evil hacker. Go

figure.) Despite decades of outcry from the old guard "hackers" of yesteryear to recapture the original meaning

in the widespread vernacular it is changed permanently.

 

Is that "wrong" for the word to change? No, that's just how languages evolve. It isn't right or wrong, it just

*IS*. When was the last time you head someone use thee for you in casual conversation? The concept of analog as

an antonym to digital is a vernacular usage that clearly is going to stick whether we like it or not. And if you

try to resist the flow, the kids in Best Buy are going to look at you like your a fool, even if you're the one

who is right.

 

MB

The problem with the introduction of the word analog to mean film is that it replaces an accurate word that everyone understands with an inaccurate, misleading word (which already has another, useful meaning).

I suppose analog could be understood to also include glass plates which film does not. Maybe it should be digital vs. emulsion photography.

I grew up in an era where it was customary to use parallel construction when making comparisons. It was also a time when computers were analog, vis-a-vis operational amplifiers, sextants, dial clocks and slide rules. The handful of digital computers would only run about 15 minutes before breaking down. Once personal computers came of age it became customary to compare "analog" vs. "digital". Since a typical DSLR is closer to being a computer than anything else, the conclusion is inevitable. If it's not digital, then it must be analog.

 

Besides, the term "film" is too restrictive in this inclusive age. Do we exclude those who still use glass plates, silver nitrate and egg white or tin plates and mercury? I'm sure there are advocacy groups (probably in Iowa) who would object :-)

Hi,

I just wonder, for those who are still in disputing mood, what it would be right a "logical" naming classification for the "analog" slides and negatives scanned for the purpose of storing, printing or distribution. Are we still in analog domain?

NJ

"Besides, the term "film" is too restrictive in this inclusive age. Do we exclude those who still use glass plates, silver

nitrate and egg white or tin plates and mercury? I'm sure there are advocacy groups (probably in Iowa) who would

object :-)"

 

There is something that all processes other than digital have in common, its called chemicals, unless there is

something I am missing.

 

I understand the word, and the reason some people want to use it. I just have always thought of analog as

something that required some kind of voltage. Like I said in the origingal post "If I am incorrect in my thinking let me

know.

 

If I use Hector's line of thought, (although I know what he is saying is true) then my shiny little Canonet hanging

around my neck is not actually a camera at all, it's "Bling Bling". (thats called humour for those of you that takes

everything so seriously)

Edward explained it twice. Analog is continuous, digital is discrete. Many people refer to "film" as silver halide to distinguish it from other forms of photography.

Thanks Walt, I got it when he explained it to me at 1:21am, but this is the Casual Conversation Forum. So whats wrong with having a casual conversation? As long as there are no casualties.

Silver nitrate and egg white. Now I know I know too much.

Walt, is silver halide not also used in glass plate photography?

<I>"Do we exclude those who still use glass plates, silver nitrate and egg white or tin plates and mercury?</I><P>Those

are all films so no problem there. Emulsion on a glass plate is a "film", the glass is just a thicker then cellulose acetate, but still a

film.<P>But <I>..the term "analog" is used instead of

film for its pejorative effect.</I> That pretty much sums it up.<P>BTW, I'm glad no one used "analogue", starting to see that used here

and

there.

Curtis Scott wrote:

 

"There is something that all processes other than digital have in common, its called chemicals, unless there is something I am missing."

 

RA-4 wet process printing is chemical and it exists in most mini-lab printers that output prints from digital imaging, and you can obtain Endura RA-4 "translucent and transparent film" in 72" wide rolls for large digital and optical prints as well.

Bob, I think you lost me on that one. The comment about chemicals, was made in reference to Edward's comment that " the term "film" is too restrictive in this inclusive age". So how does RA-4 printing fit in this context. I can scan a neqative and for all practical purposes "digitize" it. Not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to keep up.

Unless there's some legal contract that specifies what process would be used for a job, I don't think it would matter. As

long as everyone involved understands; this kind of hair splitting is probably not going to be productive.

 

Anybody who really cared, but didn't know what my process was could just ask. Aside from photo nerds like us, I find that

most people lose interest in these matters after about 30 seconds. They like looking at the pictures, though.

 

Proceed with confidence; load your camera; do your print runs. The salesmen can schmooze over the marketing. It'll be

okay, if we build good pictures. J.