Digital versus Analog?

[kelly_flanigan1]

Those who just use the term Analog for "film" are just newbies. Its just a cute prepie agenda thing marking them as newbies. Long ago there was electronic capture of still images on tape as analog signals. This was before many newbies were born; thus ancient still electronic capture in the older analog non digital mode is not known. "Film" is a many decades old term; a Kodak Brownie 120 roll "film" a 100 plus years ago called it film; when it was on wooden spools. Part of the newbies agenda is recoining old ancient terms. Kodak had digital recording on film as a mass computer memory storage project in the late 1970's in Sand Diego. One was recording ones and zeros; ie black and white digital info on film; ie digital recording on film as a mass storage method before the CD's laser disc came out. Thus if a newbie; ie agendite calls all film analog; this old Kodak scheme would be "digital recording on analog" instead of digital recording on film. Calling film "analog" fits the typical spineless marketing chaps agenda of creating BS terms to dazzle the dumb publics craving of new toys. When many film chaps left Photo.net when digital became mainstream; their new site was called APUG; Analog Photography Users Group. When I mentioned at the start that they should use the older more mainstream; less BS term of FILM; I got a zillion emails saying that Analog is the proper new term. Thus for many Analog is the newbies Koolaid term to worship; and if you have used "FILM" for 1/2 century as I have; you are an evil chap for even mentioning the term "analog" is abit goofy.

[jack_welsh]

Film is just that, film. Whether it is movie film or still film. Digital is ones and zeros that consists of gates. (chips are basically 100's -1000's of gates)AND,OR, NOR, XNOR, etc. Analog consists of a circuit that consists of resistors, caps, diodes, etc that drop a voltage.Digital has a voltage, yes, but it is on or off. Analog circuits have a continuous voltage. Film doesn't drop a voltage.and it doesn't have ones and zeros. It is a phsical substance, based on chemical properties. Digital is based on electrical properties.So, calling film analog is like calling table salt, butterflies, analog.

[kelly_flanigan1]

At the micro level the images you store on as a digital file on a CD or a disc drive are read by a sensor or head; and the feeble signal is really this hokey analog signal thats boosted by a preamp; if its lows and highs ie the transisions become the digital signal. <BR><BR>With digital cameras the term film was used for exculsively for film for over a decade after digital cameras came out. It took newbies to digital a DECADE to coin the ill prepie spinless term "analog" for film. <BR><BR>Analog is just a brand; a walking siren new folks like to wear on their heads telling the world they are newbies.<BR><BR>If one walked into the Co-op feed store in Ames Iowa and told the oldest workers that there are NEW terms for corn; feed; tractors; seed; just the mentioning the new labels marks the user of the new branded terms a newbie; greenhorn, kid, baby; somebody with no experience; somebody with an agenda; somebody to be questioned and watched.:)

[anov]

Just like a watch right? Before digital watch it's just called a watch, not analog watch. After Digital

watch the regular watch becomes analog watch to differentiate with digital watch. This retronym

happens again in photography. In fact it happens whenever digital replaces something, analog audio,

analog TV etc. Language evolves. It's just our way to differentiate them.

[jack_welsh]

This justs shows how people have to call everything that isn't digital Analog. Even though it isn't. An analog tv is just that, analog. But, there isn't such a thing as analog watches. There is a digital watch and a mechanical watch. BUt, now film, not being digital, people have this mindset to compare it to digital. So, film (even though it is a plastic film) is called analog!

 

It's like world war 1 wasn't called that until world war 2!

[kelly_flanigan1]

When many film users were leaving photo.net I mentioned that their new sandbox should have the 100 year old term FILM in it instead of JUST analog; since its an old term; easy to find; one thats older than any photographer alive; one well understood across all languages. <BR><BR>ie maybe the new sandbox could be called Film users group or something with FILM in it rather than just the new iffy term ANALOG; ie Analog Photography Users Group<BR><BR>Its like they were so ticked off with any mention of digital; that their new sandbox had to have an anti -digital agenda; ie thus the word analog. <BR><BR>Calling all film analog is a deep religion for many now; its even spread to printing. Folks call and want to know if you "can print analog";and thus one has to ask all these questions to figure out what ther heck they are talking about. Folks call old 35mm slides sometimes "analog slides"; analog or c41 negatives or dumb prints just "analog"; or call old VHS tapes analog; or even polaroids or 8mm cine movies; or even 8mm magnetic tapes too. Its like now every old format is now declared "analog" if it not from a digital camera; whether its film; magnetic tape; movie films; prints etc. Folks will say they are "bringing in some analog on a disc" this might be then scanned some prints or negatives at home; OR its really some digital camera images too. Since its on a disc its analog:) to some folks now. :) <BR><BR> Thus the dumbing down agenda of newbies has made their Koolaid analog term fit any old photo or film or movie format/material/VHS/Beta/ ;and one as a printer has to ask a zillion questions now to find out what the chap on the other end of the phone is really talking about. <BR><BR>We got this convolved question last week from a lady that wanted analog printed out; and she has a 35mm camera. She wanted it turns out "analog"slides as the contest says; see didnt know that there was a thing called slide film; or that old could shoot slides with a 35mm camera. Thus the contest wanted originals; non photoshoped; she at first wanted me to make analog ( film slides ) from her 4x6 prints; from c41 negatives; or analog ( film slides ) from her digital camera. Many folks don't even know what a slide or negative is anymore; the recent trend to label all the old stuff now "analog" is appalling; it just adds to confusion; it drives up the cost with dealing with folks. It just goes to show how few folks really shoot slides anymore; if an GOOD 1980's Canon EOS shooter thats shot a ton of iso 800 stuff has never heard of 35mm slides; or seen them; then a smart ass contest writer asks/demands for slides; but calls them "analog originals"

[jack_welsh]

Kelly has made some great points that in this comparing film to analog obsession world, that the human language has gotten screwed up!

[bernie moore]

"APUG.ORG is an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes." So we have "traditional" defined as "non-digital." Oh, oh! Here we go again...

[mark_chartrand]

I have not heard the term analog used either, but I understand what the person meant, so it doesn't matter to me.

 

Mark

[lovcom_photo]

Analog qualifies.

 

Digital quantifies, codifies.

[markci]

Analog is a perfectly accurate term for both chemical photography and mechanical watches. Whether you like it or not.

[lex_jenkins]

Digital = A thumb.

 

Analog = A seat.

 

Digital vs. Analog = Sitting on one's thumb.

[tomscott]

"Analog is a perfectly accurate term for both chemical photography and mechanical watches. Whether you like it or not".

 

 

Lex, I'm beginning to see your point. Some people aren't capable of a sense of humour!

[silverscape]

I don't come into the Causual Conversations forum that much.

 

But I have to agree with Kelly Flanigan 100 percent. The term "analog" for film photography seems pretty lame to me. I'm on the APUG website too, and I've never complained, but calling film photography "analog" just to distinguish it from digital just doesn't make sense to me. What's wrong with just calling it "film photography"? Or maybe just "traditional photography"? The main reason why I think it's lame is because it's like you're just trying to jump on the bandwagon and using a term which you think is the "opposite" of digital. Film has been around MUCH longer than digital and I don't see why anyone should have to use some cute little term to distinguish it from digital. When I talk about photography with film, I NEVER call it "analog." That just sounds lame. I just say film photography or pictures taken with film, or sometimes "traditional photography."

 

I don't know what it was like when digital watches first showed up. I'm too young to remember a time before digital watches. When I was a kid though, I did say "digital watch" or "my watch is digital." I never called mechanical watches "analog." I don't think anyone did really. I'm trying to remember what we called them when I was a kid, and when was the first time that I even heard the term "analog watch." It seems like that's kind of new thing. I think when I was a kid, we would just say "digital watch" and then for mechanical watches we would either say "mechanical watch" or "the kind with hands." LOL

 

In fact, yeah, I think the whole thing with trying to use "analog" and "digital" as opposites is a fairly new thing. It's a fad. It's not accurate. Analog or digital should mainly only be used when you're talking about a signal.

[jack_welsh]

This trying to call film analog is just dumb. Analog is a signal,film is not, plain and simple.Digital is an on -off signal primarily made of gates, flip flops,etc that turn the signal on or off. Analog is a continuous signal.This whole thing about calling film analog started by people, in this digital age, that if it ain't digital, then, call it, analog. well, wood,cars,and cats ain't digital either!

Film is not a signal. It is a plastic based material period. Since people want to equate film with being the opposite of digital as analog. Then, maybe since film was before digital, we should instead call digital "The unFilm". as, that old commercial called 7 up the "UnCola". LOL

[backswamp]

I think the word problem comes from the inadequate comparison of images to sound. But vernacular usage of

language is often casual, without regard to the incorrectness of the terminology.

 

I dare say that someone from 1800 would think of our definition for "analog" as a continuously varying signal is

a bit twisted, although it is at least a sensible use from the Greek root.

 

So consider:

 

For sound, there is "analog" recording in wax cylinders, shellac disks, vinyl disks, film (8-track, reel-reel,

cassette), and probably a few others that are obscure.

 

For sound there is "digital" recording on various common media (CD's), and there was digital recording on "film"

i.e. there are pieces of mylar magnetic tape floating around that have digital recordings on them.

 

For sound there are recordings that are completely mechanical, wax cylinders specifically. There are recordings

that were

electro-mechanically recorded but reproduced mechanically, shellac disks. There are recordings that are

electronically recorded and electro-mechanically reproduced, i.e. everything else. All "digital" recording are

also electronic recordings. (And until you can plug the wire into your head, all reproduction is either

mechanical or electro-mechanical, since your ears respond only to mechanical vibrations.)

 

For images, it seems that the proper breakdown for the division we usually address is really chemical and

electronic, not digital and analog. And in the history of image recording, there is a period of analog recording

on magnetic film of images using raster scan technology (TVs). But *MOST* electronic records of today are also

digital.

 

These two paragraphs are undoubtedly inadequate to give a "scholarly" breakdown of the nuances, but to the

average Joe six-pack standing at Walgreens looking at his pictures this seems like so much hair-splitting. Ergo,

in the vernacular language, we're stuck with digital and analog.

 

But I really do like "the Unfilm" suggestion. Reminds me of the Undead more than the Uncola, though. After all,

they do seem like zombies far too often.

 

MB

[steve m smith]

<I>BTW, I'm glad no one used "analogue", starting to see that used here and there.</I><BR><BR>

 

Although 'analogue' is the correct English spelling.

[tomscott]

I quess it depends on who wrote the dictionary don't it. One would suppose that it would depend on whose dictionary you were relying upon. Whatever, sounds like semantics to me.

[steve m smith]

No it doesn't. In England we speak and write English. In English it is spelled 'analogue'. In the US you use a modified form of English. Your modification spells it 'analog'. It is not true English though.

[backswamp]

Steve Smith wrote: "In England we speak and write English. In English it is spelled 'analogue'. In the US you use

a modified form of English. Your modification spells it 'analog'. It is not true English though."

 

Come one now Steve, we're Americans. The entire world revolves around us. In fact, many of us think the whole

universe was created specifically to get *US* in the picture so we could save the rest of it. (Notice the was the

first person pronoun fits exactly with the initials! See, it's got to be fate.)

 

I dare say there hasn't been as ethnocentric a society as us in the history of the world unless perhaps Rome just

before the horrific downfall.

[tomscott]

Here is a paragraph from a short history of the Enlish Lanquage:

 

Varieties of English

 

"From around 1600, the English colonization of North America resulted in the creation of a distinct American variety

of English. Some English pronunciations and words "froze" when they reached America. In some ways, American

English is more like the English of Shakespeare than modern British English is. Some expressions that the British

call "Americanisms" are in fact original British expressions that were preserved in the colonies while lost for a time in

Britain".

 

Don't be so sure that the British way of speaking or writing is necessarily proper English!

 

Here is the link if you would like to read the rest of the article:

 

http://www.englishclub.com/english-language-history.htm

[lex_jenkins]

<i>"In England we speak and write English."</i><p>

 

Oh. That explains Cockney rhyming slang.<p>

 

C'mon, you folks have more dialects in a country the size of one of our states than we have in an entire one-third of a continent! Not to mention a rich literary history of reinventing the language.

[clive1]

Is this dialogue or dialog?

[backswamp]

"Is this dialogue or dialog?"

 

 

Uh, neither. I think it's serial monologues. ;)

 

MB