3 ms·

I agree with you and find it hard to understand the fascination with going backward in terms of fundamental capabilities. I've been in electronic media producti

I agree with you and find it hard to understand the fascination with going backward in terms of fundamental capabilities. I've been in electronic media production technology my whole professional life, starting out with analog tape-based audio and video and progressing through the transition to digital. Artistically, I understand and highly appreciate the value of making creative choices to utilize historical or nostalgic treatments such as analog sounding hiss or vinyl tracking in audio. In video, I enjoy seeing a director use a "fat" composite video look consistent with 1970s analog recording on a 2-inch Ampex VTR. Yet, having actually started out using that type of equipment as our only way to create, it was a tremendous limitation that reduced our capabilities and the creative choices that were even possible. Spending long hours producing top-notch audio in professional 24-track analog studio only to bring it home on consumer cassette tape was demoralizing. I remember sadly telling my family "This is sounds so much more amazing in the studio off the master tape. I wish you could hear what we made." And I wished I could hear what I made in my car or anywhere other than work. Photography and videography have followed a similar progression and it's just strange. Today, I capture my photos with a 50 megapixel digital camera with 14 stops of dynamic range and a full lossless workflow (no lossy compression). I capture my audio at 24-bit 96 khz to have plenty of creative headroom in post. Sure, I sometimes creatively choose to use a 1960s lens on that camera or a lovely old studio mic on the front end of my audio workflow because I want that look or sound. But it's a choice I make on a creative spectrum that's 1,000x wider than being stuck with analog generational artifacts being literally "the best" we could manage.

neverartful 4y ago
Good photography is so much more than megapixel density of a sensor. In some cases, people don't want the photo to be super sharp (e.g., would show blemishes on a face). Additionally, there are some who make their photos look as much like a painting as possible. Why? Because they aren't going for maximum detail. Instead they're going for a certain look or 'feel'. Digital photography has done wonders for the average person by way of the smartphone. However, I would argue that except in very few instances, it hasn't necessarily made professional photography better (in terms of the final photo). By the way, I'm not saying that it hasn't brought some improvements to the process (it certainly has). There has been some phenomenal photographs produced before digital ever hit the scene. It has made it perhaps easier for the professional in that they can take more photographs in a specific span of time or have more dials to tune the style, but those things don't make the photographs automatically better.
em3rgent0rdr 4y ago
> "it was a tremendous limitation that reduced our capabilities and the creative choices that were even possible." A counter argument to this is that the limitations forced better artistship. For instance before music recording studies had autotune and easy overdub or cut-and-paste, musicians had to be able to play things correctly for the whole song.

neverartful 4y ago

Good photography is so much more than megapixel density of a sensor. In some cases, people don't want the photo to be super sharp (e.g., would show blemishes on a face). Additionally, there are some who make their photos look as much like a painting as possible. Why? Because they aren't going for maximum detail. Instead they're going for a certain look or 'feel'. Digital photography has done wonders for the average person by way of the smartphone. However, I would argue that except in very few instances, it hasn't necessarily made professional photography better (in terms of the final photo). By the way, I'm not saying that it hasn't brought some improvements to the process (it certainly has). There has been some phenomenal photographs produced before digital ever hit the scene. It has made it perhaps easier for the professional in that they can take more photographs in a specific span of time or have more dials to tune the style, but those things don't make the photographs automatically better.

em3rgent0rdr 4y ago

> "it was a tremendous limitation that reduced our capabilities and the creative choices that were even possible." A counter argument to this is that the limitations forced better artistship. For instance before music recording studies had autotune and easy overdub or cut-and-paste, musicians had to be able to play things correctly for the whole song.