Can Albert Porter explain the photography thing for us? I'm sure a lot of people spend big money on cameras too in the name of accuracy stuff like depth of field, sharp focus, correct colors. But why then is that okay, while an expensive stereo is crazy?
Cdc (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)
Thanks for the email heads up on this thread, I've been totally slammed with both stereo buzz and photo work. I'm happy to have Boy Scouts of America job on Monday, which should be a blast.
As for expensive cameras versus expensive stereo, they do different things (obviously). A photographer is the creator of the image and gets to own the original (highest quality) version of the image captured regardless if it's film or digital.
With stereo we audiophiles are typically last in line, we take what the artists and recording companies offer and hope to recreate that as close to possible to what we hope is an accurate version of the event.
It gets difficult with music since many artists alter the music with effects and then the recording chain alters it again, sometimes even deliberately limiting frequencies, compressing or otherwise making the music "more suitable" for the masses.
With both photography and music there is a hope to capture beauty, emotion and accuracy as best we can. The big limitation with photography is the camera has only one "eye" where we see with two.
At lest in modern recordings we have stereo (or multichannel) which at least attempts to recreate the space and multiple sounds that we experience in real life.
With either it's a very difficult task. We should be grateful to have all the technology we have today. Stereo has never been better and regardless if you prefer Ansel Adams Black and White approach or ultra high resolution digital we at least have a choice.