NY Times Lens blog: Picturing the End of Analog

<p>Pictures and a story in the NY Times Lens blog posted on Feb 12, 2013<br>

<a href="http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/picturing-the-end-of-analog/?hp">http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/picturing-the-end-of-analog/?hp</a></p>

<p>Interesting, I guess, but "<em>analog</em>" ? ? ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Think Joe Walsh, analog man, on a side note when I first heard that song I thought that'll get mentioned in the P-net forums classic cameras or film and processing, but it didn't, or I just missed it. Curious as to why the concern for trade secrets if film is almost dead, hope it lasts another 20yrs then I'll be to old to care.</p>

<p>Interesting. some of the comments say how x ray film is dead. My dentist still uses film xrays and the hospital i go to for xrays still does.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> My dentist still uses film xrays and the hospital i go to for xrays still does.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I'd be concerned about that. Digital x-rays are far superior in numerous ways, including lowered radiation exposure levels. I've been to five dentists/oral surgeons in the last ten years and all use digital x-rays. It's fast, convenient, more accurate, and safer.</p>

<p>I would take that with a grain of salt. I have been told digital xrays are not fool proof and more chance of misdiagnosis. Anything digital I would be suspect of, especially when it comes to medical . Large format is still superior and that's what the medial xrays I have had are from.</p>

And seatbelts increase your chances of dying in an accident because they trap you in the car.

<p>And don't wear a bike helmet because I know someone who got strangled by the straps...</p>

<p>One word....Noise!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd be concerned about that. Digital x-rays are far superior in numerous ways, including lowered radiation exposure levels. I've been to five dentists/oral surgeons in the last ten years and all use digital x-rays. It's fast, convenient, more accurate, and safer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting. I'll try to remember to mention that to my dentist. Maybe cheaper too?</p>

<p>I seem to be seeing a lot of him lately, LOL.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Digital x-rays are far superior in numerous ways, including lowered radiation exposure levels</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have been told digital xrays are not fool proof and more chance of misdiagnosis.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no knowledge or experience in this matter. However, it demonstrates that technological progress is not always simple. If film x-rays reduce the change of misdiagnosis, then maybe a higher radiation level is justified.</p>

<p>What annoyed me about the article and the comments was the implication that nobody uses film anymore and that it's only for old time's sake.</p>

 

<p>This story could have been written in 2003. Why now?</p>

<p>It is great to be from New York. Everything is more important if it is from New York, down to the discarded bottle cap in the gutter. Anyway, this is a moderately interesting article by a guy who is nostalgic about film. And the end of the analog era. We've heard about the Bronx and the end of film once too often. The interesting part is about the Kodak factories in Toronto. The secret formulas, the myths. Very interesting.</p>

<p>I own more film cameras than digital cameras but I am so thankful for the digital age. It has given me independence, an audience, saved me money and give me an alternative to the chemical darkroom. Saying that, I love film more than I did in the analog only days. I can scan it and control the images it produces in color and black and white.</p>

<p>I am not nostalgic. Here in Japan film lives a relatively secure existence. </p>

<p>I do not know whether my dentist went digital since I last saw him. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> If film x-rays reduce the change of misdiagnosis,</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That's supposition and it's incorrect. There are things that can be done with digital x-rays that make it far more useful for diagnosis.</p>

<p>I don't expect film to "go the way of 33 1/3's" any time soon. There are still so many things you can accomplish with film that you cannot with digital and I actually know a couple of professional photographers in town who put their film cameras on the shelf for digital and have now taken them <em>back off the shelf</em> and are using them again for their studio work. But I do anticipate it will be more expensive to continue to use it.</p>

<p>And especially when it comes to black and white, no grayscale converted digital image today can compete with the range and richness of tones achievable with negatives and top quality paper like Oriental Seagull</p>

<p>I've bought more film in the first two months of this year then I did all of last year and probably the year before. In fact I plan on shooting way more film from now on then digital images, even using more high speed film for low light stuff. While film photography may be more expensive, and I'm sure someone somewhere can argue that point, I enjoy the get off your ass process of developing, and knowing the different film/developer combinations and the looks that one gets. It also re-enforces my knowledge of lighting and exposure values and provides me with a hard copy that will probably last beyond whatever the marketplace will throw at me as to storage and easily beyond my lifespan. In essence, I'm bored with the digital prostitute and the quick returns. I don't need to travel at that speed. Film photography makes me think. Digital photography, from alot of what I have seen, is 20 images of the SOS that generally doesn't muster the pass test from the start.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Digital photography, from alot of what I have seen, is 20 images of the SOS that generally doesn't muster the pass test from the start.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You obviously haven't seen very much then.</p>

<p>Actually exactly the opposite. I scan at least 400 images a week in various W/NW threads and from various Flickr accounts and blogs besides magazines. There is much that is good; From professionals and the advanced that usually put up their best. But if you keep track of just that segment you miss all the, well, less desirable imaging, and there's plenty of it. What's that line about if you get two or three good photo's from a roll your doing pretty good. Well, what I often see is what appears to be the whole roll (or card) of images being uploaded regardless. It's called sharing; Just without any filtering going on. 10 to 15 shots of your girlfriend in different poses is not a portfolio; It's an infatuation. Btw, this is not a complaint believe it or not, just an observation of all the imaging out there being shown. I personally have folders of images that will never be seen. I'm just lucky tho in that I know what my c**p is. The point is, digital makes it easy to shoot 200 bad images at no cost. Alot of it is not about photography in the purest sense of study like many in these communities talk about. It's about life and friends and sharing. Which is fine.</p>

<p>Robert Burley is just another apologist for the digital industry.</p>

<p>Give some evidence of that. The "digital industry" doesn't need "apologists" so it's unlikely he is. It's doing just fine without any apologies, as the numbers easily show.</p>

<p>And such common phrases these days as "...the end of analog..." to give it a boost and film the boot.</p>

I'm going to go out on a limb and say film will be around longer than the print edition of the New York Times.