- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 739
- Reaction score
- 3
Well I was going to come in and type responses but it looks like TS beat me to the punch. I've used both analog and digital. The only people I know that use analog are those that never tried digital. I think people tend to think for some reason that true photographers aren't using digital - which is false, and that it's unlikely the great photographers of the past wouldn't be using digital were they around today (an impossible argument). TS perfectly summed up my feelings in that you can be a hobbyist and appreciate the beauty of vintage cameras and lenses, but to argue that analog is better than digital is simply absurd. I understand the attachment to analog (I still listen to vinyl myself - I like the sound of it), but I would never say that vinyl is superior to CD.
I don't think you can compare these technologies . Each has it's place. I use digital for all my commercial work-I don't have to hire a pro- because it is so amazingly easy for an amateur to achieve a pro result, but that's why so many post their fabulous shots on sites like Flickr. The question is, if it's so easy, how come there aren't more great shots? Most of the "good work" I see looks like artsy fartsy digital manipulations or stock photos for a magazine. Maybe analog photography produced so much really great work because it was so difficult to work with . Maybe the interaction with the analog medium produces a different kind of synergism. By the way, vinyl sucks, I'm thinking of selling my Thorens turntable.