[HUG ] Re: tripods

We're quite off topic but I feel compelled to disagree - in the analog world, 
we did willfully degrade quality for convenience. We went from 8x10 to 4x5 to 
120, then to 35mm and even to 126/110/disc and eventually to the dreadful APS 
format.

Most people will take convenience over quality and an argument can be made that 
perhaps it is better to have a bad photo than no photo at all.

I think the issue is that people tend to associate digital with quality. Both 
digital and analog can be excellent or garbage, it's just easier to hide the 
garbage when it's digital...

Rémi.

From: hasselblad-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:hasselblad-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of flexbody@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:43 PM
To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [HUG ] Re: tripods

There is not only a big difference in technology between analogue and digital 
audio equipment for both professional and home use.
In analogue days the best was not good enough and every precaution was taken to 
ensure optimum quality.
Pros and amateurs did their utmost to achieve good reults whether recording 
music or playing those recordings at home.

Now people accept and even will fully downgrade digital recordings just for the 
sake of more content on the same carrier.
MP3 rubbish would have been impossible to sell in the analogue era.

For some reason sound and vision react differently on analogue/digital 
transfers and recording media.
The eye seems to be more forgiving than our ears.

In audio digital is still being compared with high end analogue like any cola 
drink is always compared with Coca Cola.

















  "Franc Flipsen" <fujifan@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb:

It;s the same for the CD vs Records ,  There is a roundness to music from a 
record that you just don't get with a CD just like there is a tonal quality you 
just don't get in a digital print.  Some call it distortion, I like to call it 
old school richness.  There is something about a reproduction antique, too 
perfect maybe??

Franc



----- Original Message -----
From: Sue Pearce<mailto:bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>
To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1:20 PM
Subject: [HUG ] Re: tripods

Bob,

I have several images from my Xpan that were both optically printed and scanned 
and printed with Durst equipment. There is something about the optical prints 
that just isn't there in the scan and print examples.

Also, I must interject my feelings on the tripod business. No matter what the 
format, a camera on a tripod will always produce the greatest sharpness. 
Weather or not that is important is up to you. Th ere were generations of 
wedding and commercial prhotographers that hand held 'blads with good results. 
In my ownb business, I am sometimes called on to shoot from the tops of units 
in refineries, or from safety cage ladders. I've drug my tiltall up those 
things, and it's no fun. Same for shooting in a cramped weld shop. Things shot 
there are reproduced small, but I have taken negs up to 20x24 and there is 
nothing to be ashamed of. Or, nothing of which to be ashamed.

Bill Pearce

Other related posts: