[rollei_list] Re: OT: Slide Film and E6
- From: "Neil Gould" <neil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:25:45 -0600
Hi,
> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:54:33 -0600
> From: Don Williams <dwilli10@xxxxxxx>
>
> At 09:33 AM 12/23/2007 -0800, Peter wrote, in part::
>> But today solid state has come a long way and with newer preamp
>> designs they are every bit as good IMO. This is much like digital
>> versus medium format if you think about it. There are also newer
>> digital amps which convert all to digits and allow you to manipulate
>> them. Gone are the days of walls of high powered amps. Many
>> instruments are mic'd through a PA system these days. Much different
>> than 30-40 years ago.
>
> I have to agree that for some time, many years in fact, solid state
> amplifiers have been able to outperform tube systems in every way.
>
> By this I mean that they can be designed to more precisely produce an
> exact replica of any signal at almost any power level. I know that
> because I've done it for many different applications.
>
> That then brings up the question, "Why do many folks say that tube
> systems sound better than solid state systems?" Is this because of
> some kind of longing for the past, some special type of distortion in
> some tube amplifiers, or just a continuing myth?
>
In the early '70s, I got tired of lugging my VT-22 with EV12Ls around (I
still have it, but don't lift it very often), and started designing and
building solid state amps and modelling capabilities with line outputs to
the main PA system. Today, in most situations I don't use an amp at all...
just a programmable modelling preamp that feeds the recorder or PA.
>From my perspective, there has always been a distinct difference in
purpose between music production and music reproduction. For music
production, unique amplifier and speaker characteristics are desirable
qualities, whereas for reproduction the opposite is true, as the more
transparent the system the better. I think that there is an analogy to
this in photography, as cameras and lenses have unique imaging qualities,
and the best print systems will not detract from or impose on those
qualities.
> And, sad to say to this group, I have become quite content with
> digital camera systems vs film camera systems. I can take any
> picture which is available in digital form and do all the things
> previously done by using variations in chemistry, film and print
> stock, whatever, in a small fraction of the time and with no mess and
> no darkroom.
>
There are likely as many perspectives toward image making as there are
image makers. There is also a "hybrid" approach, where film is scanned and
digitally printed. That is my usual method when I'm not after the
edge-of-the-performance curve that one medium or the other provides. I
also much prefer the lower archival maintenance issues that film provides
over digital media.
> I think there will always be folks who say they can recognize certain
> nice qualities in a chemical system print or slide, but I don't have
> that ability. Is this again a longing for the past, or what?
>
I suspect that the differences between images provide a much greater
variation than the emperical differences between media, yet the principals
are fairly easy to grasp. Film & optical print is a 3D to 3D process, as
both media are comprised of piles of grains. The resulting transitions in
gradation include shadows created by these grain piles, so for example,
the angle of the light striking an optical print can give the print a
different look. Digital capture and printing is a 2D to 2D process (except
if using Lightjets and similar output devices that use laser imaged
optical print material). I don't think it would be difficult to observe
the differences between these approaches in a controlled side-by-side
presentation, but that isn't how we usually view photographs.
> In any case, I won't argue with anyone about their individual tastes
> or preferences, but for me, I'll go solid state for amplifiers any
> day, and have become very happy with being able to run outside and
> grab shots of our big ice storm (or the effects of it actually) and
> email them to my family 5 minutes later.
>
Speed and convenience have long influenced photographic formats. One of
the reasons for press photography formats such as used in the Speed
Graphics was that their negatives could be directly stripped into the
layout flats, greatly reducing the time required to go to print. Digital
cameras serve that purpose today for both news gathering and web/email
distribution.
> By the way, at the moment I am a bit angry at a mechanical thing- We
> just moved into a new house and it turned out that the dryer vent was
> stuck shut and we had to have the builder send out a plumber who
> finally climbed onto the roof to un-stick the vent. In the process
> of working on the vent tubing, he move the washing machine and
> apparently removed and replaced the drain hose, but didn't tighten
> the clamp. Today, 4 weeks after he was here, the drain hose slipped
> off and I had a nice session with my shop vacuum to get the water out
> of the utility room. I have to decide whether I should be mad at the
> plumber, the washer, or me for not checking his work. Still working
> on that. The only thing I can say is that if the washing machine
> were in some way all solid state, we wouldn't have had our flood.
>
Except that a component failure might vaporize your laundry... ;-)
> Merry Christmas to all.
>
And to all, a good night!
Neil
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
