What's in a name? Digital, film, or...

[steve_t.1]

<p>The common person on the street- ask them what their basic idea/meaning of digital photography is and they'll likely tell you it's taking pictures with a digial camera. Fair enough.</p>

<p>Ask the same person what their basic idea/meaning of film photography is and they'll likely tell you it's taking pictures with a film camera. Very good.</p>

<p>Ask them what analog (a.k.a. analogue) photography is and they'll probably wrinkle their brow a bit and look at you with a suspicious stare.</p>

<p>In the realm of electronics, the term "analog" has its place, but I think we are forcing this word to become something that it does not need to be. For our purposes as photographers, digital (light sensitive pixels sending an electronic signal to a computer in the camera) and film (a light sensitive chemical emulsion on a carrier such as a plastic strip) are the two technologies we use to capture an image and turn it into a photograph. There is no need to confuse or complicate what is, and has been, an otherwise perfectly clear situation.</p>

<p>I'd like to start a movement (maybe just because it's Monday...) that we call it what it is. Digital is digital. Film is film. I propose the photography community stop using the term "analog" in referring to film-based photography. It's not necessary in any way; the term "film" or "film photography" is completely sufficient and absolutely self-explanitory in the general sense.</p>

<p>Thank you for allowing me to step up onto the soap box.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Ask them what analog (a.k.a. analogue) photography is</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correctly spelled analogue!</p>

<p>I do not like the term analogue (or analog) applied to photography.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Personally, I like the idea of refering to film as a chemical sensor. Because then every other part of a film vs. digital cameras is the same - only the sensor has changed.<br>

<br />And the chemical sensor is cleaned, and upgraded with the newest state of the art chemical sensor, every time you load a new roll of film.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>That's all well and good, but as you have little to no likelihood of getting people to follow your own desires about word usage, you may be very disappointed. Words we use don't usually happen by dictum. They evolve. Usage itself is much stronger than shout-outs from the public square. Usage ultimately determines language and meaning. Besides which, what's wrong with variety. Why not have several ways of saying the same thing? I can call you Sir and I can call you Mister. I can say it's half past four or four thirty. Dinosaurs may rage on at the use of the phrase "grow the economy" as a slap in the face of correct English grammar. But English grammar isn't just what you learned in grade school. Presidents also determine grammar. So do ad execs: Got milk?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I agree, and think it's an important to have this dialogue.<br /><br />The magnetically recorded patterns on a traditional recording tape store those patterns as an analog to the varying densities in the air (compression waves) that make up what we perceive as sounds. Likewise with the wavy patterns cut into a vinyl record ... those physical variations are an analog representation of the original vibrations in the air. It's a sensible use of the word, in that context.<br /><br />The fact that film doesn't involve quantizing the recording it's making still doesn't make it the same as an analog recording anyway (in the sense that a groove in vinyl or wax is). The fact that a lot of people have come to use "analog" to mean "not digital" is just another instance of dumbed-down communication and the resulting dumbing-down of people. Now get of my lawn, etc.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Fred: I think it's worth making the distinction between the evolving use of language, and the <em>de-</em>volving use of it. When we use terms in a way that lose specificity, we're not evolving anything. Changing, yes. But not in a good way. I don't care if we use new words, or use old words in a new way. As long as we don't give up the ability to communicate nuance, or the ability to - through the simple choice of one commonly understood word over another - convey important differences between things.</p>

[SCL]

<p>You're about a day late and dollar short. (however I do agree, the use of the term analog is pretentious in this context).</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>I design computer chips for a living. In the case of a CCD it is an analog device. The ADC (Analog to Digital Converter) is an external chip on the board. With CMOS sensors you are using a more traditional fabrication process. The sensor elements are still analog devices but you can add digital devices such as the ADC, demosaic, JPEG converter, etc. on the same chip if you have the room. Sure the end result of both are discrete pixel values rather than continuous so the term "digital" applies but because of the device physics involved I find the term "analog photography" to be kind of silly.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Matt, I understand what you're saying and agree . . . to an extent. It's also worth noting that it's usually older curmudgeons who think language is <em>de</em>volving and usually younger upstarts who are in charge of its evolution.</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>anqalog to my way of thinking is a variable thing like a cds cell that varies withour steps from light to dark,<br>

or the iso or shutter speed settings on such a camera that varies, most likely with a variable resistor.<br>

but these "semi electronic or "electrical cameras" like a pentax K100,<br>

are not really analog , although they use electrical technoligy to adjet the exposure<br>

ON the other hand a Canon AE- or AE-1 Program has a microprocessor of sorts and could be called a DIGITAL or "sort of" digital camera even though it uses good old 35mm film. SO the mine is blurry.<br>

I think it is because a Digital camera is NOT A FILM Camera<br>

they use the word that is an opposite. this is pure Lazyness.<br>

People often adopt a key word to describe things, so they can use a single word.<br>

CASE IN POINT<br>

I recently bid on some VIRGIN inkjet cartriges,<br>

apparently this is common usage for ink jet cartriges that are empty but have never been refilled.<br>

Does that same kind of description also apply to your 12 year old daughter or sister?<br>

I don';t think so. But the term is applied to empty ink jet cartriges.</p>

[f_ph1]

<p>dedicated to steve: <br />

<p>if i have to walk around with this tune in my head all day today... so do you. :)</p>

[vilk_inc]

<p>good lord, don't tell the APUG folks or we're all dead meat</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>The only thing analog about photography is the A/D converters in the scanner and digital camera.</p>

<p>The 'A' meaning Analog and the 'D' meaning Digital.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>By definition, practically, anyone who uses the term <em>analog(ue)</em> is NOT a film user.</p>

<p>I'm not all that happy with <em>digital(e)</em> for that matter. ;) Sounds like finger painting to me. I had "digital imaging" with Miss Enz in second grade, way back.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I disagree with Matt here - film is very much equivalent to the musical tape recording as it records (albeit in latent form) varying light intensities in a continuous form on film - followed by a chemical process to develop and fix the previously latent image. Thus technically, film is analog(ue) - though the use of film vs digital makes the distinction clearer than analog vs digital. As Walt pointed out - a CCD is very much an analog device; the digitizing of the recorded voltage happens latter.</p>

[will_daniel1]

Evolution of our language happens regardless of whether we like it. For as long as English has been spoken on this earth and as long as there has been text, "text" was a noun -- OK, maybe sometimes an adjective. Within just a few short years -- thanks to digital communications -- the word is now also a verb.

[Matt Laur]

<p>The point, Will, is that we don't use "text" to mean "e-mail" and "sms" and "instant message" and "voice mail" and "phone call." Conflating things that used to have separate names (because they are separate things) into one concept (with one word to name it) is a reduction in clarity. It requires more conversation, context, or other information in order to find out what was really meant. Making words less precise is not the same as using them in a different way.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Matt, I think a certain amount of carelessness in word usage is fine, depending on context.</p>

<p>When I write Philosophy papers, I choose my words extremely carefully, knowing full well the nuance of every word and phrase I choose and its impact on the very important (VERY IMPORTANT!) details of what I'm saying. It's amazing how the choice of a word and even the placement of a word or comma can alter what I am trying to say.</p>

<p>I don't think the same holds true in common language and social discourse. As a matter of fact, face to face misunderstanding is often the norm and it builds relationships. A certain amount of ambiguity forces us to ask questions. A certain amount of misconstrual demands that we engage each other a little more carefully. (Or, in the worst cases, it starts wars.) There's nothing that wrong with something that "requires more conversation, context, or other information." I wouldn't want that happening in the Doctor's office or the Lawyer's office but out in the street, I'm not sure it's always that harmful.</p>

<p>If I'm writing a term paper and I use "jealousy" instead of "envy" I might really get myself in trouble conceptually. But when I hear "jealousy" used instead of "envy" <em>ad nauseum</em> in most casual conversations I have, I do an immediate translation and there's really no harm done. As a matter of fact, sometimes using "envy" actually sounds forced to me and I will use "jealousy" myself. Clarity and precision can sometimes be overridden by a different kind of communication. Conversation can be a kind of poetry, where meaning is fluid and loose and anything but absolutely certain.</p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>Agree with your point, Matt.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Certainly, Fred, real-time conversation lends itself to that bit of what-did-you-actually-mean conceptual tooth pulling. But so much of our communication is now asynchronous (like this very thread) that I'd prefer not to make a virtue out of vagueness or confuse laziiness with economy.<br /><br />These forums are full of both the good kind of initially vague communication (as you mention), but also loaded with the type about which I'm grousing. See the vasty numbers of threads that read something like, "Help! I need a new lens for my camera. What do you recommend?" Without any mention of what sort of camera, subject matter, or anything else might be involved. That sort of communication betrays not just simple ignorance on the part of the person asking (that's entirely forgiveable) but also a lack of understanding about how the <em>manners</em> surrounding such communication contribute to a more constructive exchange, sooner.<br /><br />When one isn't in the habit of choosing from several similar words to use the one that most powerfully conveys the intended meaning, a lifetime of muddy, less constructive communication is the result. And that's in the same orbit as critical thinking generally, and before you know it we have cats and dogs living together, reality TV, and iPhone photography forums. :-)</p>

[jon_mullen1]

<p>Film.</p>

[rossb]

<p> I guess any term is fine with me. I was hiking in the hills yesterday and some guy called my Nikon a Canon (as in large). Kind of confusing at first. However his tone was rude so I am not sure what the deal was. </p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>I always say I use film cameras and that I use film. I don't care for the term "analog" particularly, but there is a very good reason APUG is not called FPUG or some such. Not all "analog" photo processes employ film. There are people there who coat their own plates. The term "film" could describe the emulsion layer and it would work, but film is generally considered to be an emulsion layer on a flexible base.<br>

"Traditional photography" has been suggested and sometimes used, but that is also vague and not really descriptive. "Silver based" doesn't encompass the methods which employ no silver, like carbon. "Chemical based photography" would fit, but who wants to start saying that?</p>

[rachelle_m.]

<p>Thanks Jeff, you just brought up what I was going to say!<br>

Are paper negatives/positives film?<br>

Are glass plates?<br>

Are tintypes?<br>

Although I would argue that most analog photographers are film photographers, I think the word analog grew out of a need to refer to all non-digital photographic processes without having to say "non-digital photography". There's a larger world out there other than just film.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary: analog 2a - <em>of, relating to, or being a mechanism in which data is represented by continuously variable physical quantities.</em></p>

<p>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analog</p>

<p>Sounds like a pretty good definition of film to me, where visual data is represented by continuously variable amounts of silver (B&W) or color dye.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why anyone would object to the use of the word analog to describe film photography. Nor does such a use represent a change, loss of specificity, or 'de-evolution' of the language. Using the word analog to describe film photography is a precise and proper use of the word.</p>