Stephanie,

Thanks for waking up this group!

I concur with much of what you've said about the differences between digital
and film photography. To me, they're just different media, and arguing about
which is "best" makes as little sense as arguing about whether oils are
"better" than watercolors. Both have their place in creating images.

wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-02-16 7:18 , wrote:
Here in Silicon Valley we are a small group of traditional (analog)
B&W hobbyist. We welcome others of like mind to joint our
discussion group. Meeting once a month we share prints, ideas,
problems, questions, what if's, etc. This is not a typical camera
club, no ribbons, no cookies, no competition, no judges. If in the
greater San Jose area and interested contact me off list at


B&W is not "analog", it is film. A direct image recorded without
analogy. Once developed the film is an image.

Digital cameras are actually "analog" as that is the nature of the
capture device.

That's like trying to say a digital recording is really analog since
the microphone is.. And on digital capture, I don't think any part of
the capture is "analog". It's converted to ones and zeros before it
leaves the sensor.. At least with a microphone it is analog going
through the wires to then be digitized...

I agree with your analogy, Stephanie, but there isn't much difference
between the two media... it's just that the wires are a lot shorter between
the digital sensor and the A/D converter. ;-)

The digital part is storage. No different than a good
film scan.

Alan, there is little similarity between an image on film a film scan. Scan
it, and the image becomes a 2D array, while a piece of film is a 3D pile of
crystals (or other material). Some of us appreciate the subtle differences
between these representations.

--
Best,

Neil




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---