This is evident among many people I come across who are appreciative of a
"shortlist" of certain areas of interest (some more, some less). My tastes
tend to run toward what some might call the "high end classics" in, type,
character .. and cost(!). Yet I consider many things disposable - the sort
that have a short to medium useful life, easily replaced, and trashed when
necessary - and I refuse to spend more than a certain amount of money on
them.
Be careful when invited to sample the King's table. After eating the King's
food, nothing else might ever taste the same ;)
Cheers,
Lee
----Original Message Follows----
From: Albert <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] analog and digital
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 01:19:22 -0700
Photographers seem to be stereophiles as well. I don't know why, perhaps
because they enjoy the finer things in life.
I've had my wallet seriously destroyed by stereo equipment. Being a violin
player, I'm cursed!! My sister, tone deaf... Her $49 Aiwa system, she
thinks it's the best there is. Can't differentiate that vs. something like
even midgrade stuff like Klipsh, let alone stuff like Vandersteens. Why
wasn't I so blessed??? She spends $100 on her stereo equipment, happy as a
clam. Me, I'm cursed...
Photography, same thing! Her P&S, shoots POS, but she thinks it's great, so
she's happy about that. Of course, you all are on the list, so you are all
cursed as well...
For me, the "chip vs. tube" debate is older then the Canon vs. Nikon
debate...
Albert
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I was talking to my friend, the one that got me into photography in the
first place, he's an aerospace engineer. We talked about the irony of
the digital age.
"The ultimate goal of digital, is to replicate analog." Isn't that ironic?
CD's goals are to sound like an analog signal, and digital picture's
goals are to look like an analog picture. So if I have analog already,
why do I want digital?
Your friend is wrong. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
I reviewed hi-fi equipment for over a decade. One of the stupidest remarks
I
ever heard (and continue to hear) was the statement that good digital
devices "sound [more] like analog." As far as sound reproduction is
concerned, an amplifier or recorder isn't supposed to "sound like"
anything -- it's supposed to sound like nothing at all. That is, it should
have no identifiable character of its own. The proper reference is not
analog or digital, but live sound.
Photography is different, because the exact reproduction of what's in front
of the camera has never been an important goal. Digital photography is,
shall we say, more "literal," without the subjective "distancing" of
silver-based photography. Digital is more mundanely "real" and less
"artistic."
In any case, digital photography * has many obvious advantages over
"analog"
photography, such as immediate availability and reduced material costs.
* There's some confusion because what we really mean is "electronic
photography." Sony's original Mavica was analog, not digital.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|