FILM IS NOT ANALOGUE!!!

Film 'counts' photons. Photons are discrete entities. Therefore 'Film' is not analogue as you can't have half a photon capture, it's either caught or not. However, because an exposure would capture billions of photons 'Film' is effectively an analogue recording medium.

And by that ruling any electronic device is therefore digital since you can't have half an electron either, nor half a postive hole...

Not to mention anything of wave-particle duality,which would make everything analogue n wave format!
 
And by that ruling any electronic device is therefore digital since you can't have half an electron either, nor half a postive hole...

Not to mention anything of wave-particle duality,which would make everything analogue n wave format!

Quite right! :D
 
This is quite an interesting thread!


My take is as follows:



Consider that light is a wave. Each photon therefore has energy which is directly proportional to the wavelength. The absolute value of this energy is not a precise value as far as the human ability (in making detectors) is concerned. Further, the fact that the photon waveform can take its wavelength from an infinite set of possible lengths defines the fact that it's absolute wavelength, and hence energy, can never be completely known.

Electrons, whilst it is thought that they have unit charge, and are discrete entities, are in fact not fully understood. Take for example, the value of it's charge is 1.6 blah blah blah x10^-19 coulombs, the absolute value of it's charge is still undefined. Equally, one can never know the position and momentum, or energy at a time, to below the accuracy of hbar. Equally, digital devices that work by the counting of electrons can be considered digital, as the counting of single electrons can be achieved. It is the physics underpinning the more fundamental properties which are subject to the uncertainty principle.

Film works by capturing photons, and a chemical reaction takes place which uses the energy of said photon to define the amount by which that reaction takes place. Ignoring the type of reaction that takes place, and knowing that the photon energy can never be known fully, Film is by that definition, an analogue recording medium.

Equally however, there exists a finite amount of atoms on a piece of film, and this is fact. Whilst it may be impossible, or at least monumentally difficult, to count them all, the number is finite. Therefore one could now suggest that the chemical reaction between two atoms/molecules/whatever has either occurred or has not occurred. However, the amount of energy taken from each photon can't really be fully known, nor whether or not a photon deposits all or part of its energy on an interaction event.

So, imho, I think it's fair to say film is analogue due to the simple fact that so little can be known about the process, as a whole, to an absolute value.

Oh and btw?:
[18:12:00] <Marcel_> Woodsy:
[18:12:08] <Marcel_> Tell em I sent you.

:D
 
Last edited:
........ Hence, even though film has (arguably) a lower dynamic range than the better digital sensors,........

I've never heard that before :shrug:

in fact , I always thought (been taught) film had a LOT more dynamic range than digital :thinking:
 
I've never heard that before :shrug:

in fact , I always thought (been taught) film had a LOT more dynamic range than digital :thinking:

Slide film most certainly has a lower DR than the top consumer digital sensors of today. B&W (especially) however has a huge DR, and can have it's DR compressed slightly by over exposing and under developing. It relies primarily on the property of reciprocity intrinsic to film, whereby, for a given a grain, the more photons it captures, the less responsive it is to subsequent photons, and so its sensitivity falls as a function of time.

However, and yes, there is a however :D Digital sensors specifically designed to have a high DR will blow film out the water in terms of it's usable range. Note though, that these are specially designed, and so in the realms of consumer photography, we simply never get to use them.
 
Thanks Woodsy :)
 
antonroland said:
So, am I the only one who can give birth to a rabid cow when ignorami talk about analogue photography??

Rant on here if you agree.

No! Your definitely not on your own.
Analogue seems to be applied to anything not originally described as digital.
So! We have SLR cameras ( original film), then they developed an SLR with an electronic sensor which used digital electronics to produce an (eventual) digital image (jpg). To differentiate from the normal SLR they were called DSLR's.
Then term analogue does NOT come into the equation as there is no analogue processing or analogue image produced.
Film is film NOT analogue.
There is no such thing as an analogue camera.
The terms digital and analogue refer to the type of electronics used in signal processing.
To take this argument to it's logical conclusion an analogue waveform is made up from an infinite number of digital steps.
Blah blah
Blablah blah

I'm bored now.......
 
Canon AE1 has a digital computer for calculating exposure

Pentax ESII has an analogue computer for calculating exposure

does that help the argument :)
 
****Analogue seems to be applied to anything not originally described as digital.***

erm so what....let the scientists, intellectuals or whoever have their versions and joe public or anyone else have theirs, the English language can accommodate anything.
 
No! Your definitely not on your own.
Analogue seems to be applied to anything not originally described as digital.
So! We have SLR cameras ( original film), then they developed an SLR with an electronic sensor which used digital electronics to produce an (eventual) digital image (jpg). To differentiate from the normal SLR they were called DSLR's.
Then term analogue does NOT come into the equation as there is no analogue processing or analogue image produced.
Film is film NOT analogue.
There is no such thing as an analogue camera.
The terms digital and analogue refer to the type of electronics used in signal processing.
To take this argument to it's logical conclusion an analogue waveform is made up from an infinite number of digital steps.
Blah blah
Blablah blah

I'm bored now.......

So what's wrong with using analogue to differentiate to digital :shrug:
It obviously doesn't just apply to SLR's of any flavour, what about compact cameras? ... The term refers to cameras and photography in general. Analogue doesn't have to refer to electronic anything, electronics is irrelevant! Signal processing can also mean different things and the logical conclusion you suggest is I would suggest the wrong way around .... i.e. 'digital would require an infinite number of steps (impossible) to recreate an analogue waveform' .... Therefore, I would say that it is not incorrect to refer to Analogue photography.
 
****Analogue seems to be applied to anything not originally described as digital.***

erm so what....let the scientists, intellectuals or whoever have their versions and joe public or anyone else have theirs, the English language can accommodate anything.

So what's wrong with using analogue to differentiate to digital :shrug:
It obviously doesn't just apply to SLR's of any flavour, what about compact cameras? ... The term refers to cameras and photography in general. Analogue doesn't have to refer to electronic anything, electronics is irrelevant! Signal processing can also mean different things and the logical conclusion you suggest is I would suggest the wrong way around .... i.e. 'digital would require an infinite number of steps (impossible) to recreate an analogue waveform' .... Therefore, I would say that it is not incorrect to refer to Analogue photography.

Yup, agreed :)
 
I think I lost it after "so am I the only one...." I'm going to stick to calling it fillum (because I'm childish) and dijikal for the same reason and leave particle physics and wave theory to Stephen Hawking who, I believe, shoots Leica.

Andy
 
The only reason I refuse to call it "analogue photography" is because the term only came about with the advent of digital photography and it is therefore a "diginormative" term. Just like homosexual ranters dislike heteronormative narratives, so I dislike new terminology that sidelines the classic way of doing things as "not normal".

Or maybe I'm just a stick in the mud.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. We all know what each other is talking about and the terms "digital" and "analogue" are not being applied innaccurately.

Is a film photograph still a film photo (or analogue photo) once it's been scanned in to a computer or has it now become a digital photo?
Suck on that :p
 
The only reason I refuse to call it "analogue photography" is because the term only came about with the advent of digital photography and it is therefore a "diginormative" term. Just like homosexual ranters dislike heteronormative narratives, so I dislike new terminology that sidelines the classic way of doing things as "not normal".

Or maybe I'm just a stick in the mud.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. We all know what each other is talking about and the terms "digital" and "analogue" are not being applied innaccurately.

Is a film photograph still a film photo (or analogue photo) once it's been scanned in to a computer or has it now become a digital photo?
Suck on that :p

That would be an ecumenical matter *



or a Hybrid process :shrug:
 
its a digital rendition of a film photo...:D


Its true, nobody called film photography analogue before digital arrived, but there was no reason to try to differentiate between the two because one of them didn't exist.
Using the term analogue doesn't really bother me because it always needs to be qualified by the word film in any conversation, somebody will say, "I'm shooting analogue photography" and everybody will ask if that's film...:lol:
Anyway, I have more of an issue with other words like "mono" "tiltshift" and fullframe...

:)
 
Just because nobody called it analogue photography before doesn't mean it wasn't an analogue process back then.
 
Back
Top