Tube Equipment: Gimmick?

Schubertmaniac - let me assure you that I need no lessons in what each
of the two cameras are mostly used for. As Gunbei pointed out, you are
just illustrating my point. They are two entirely different tools used to
accomplish a similar task (making photographic images). Each has it's
own strengths and weaknesses. They can both make photographic
images but the (technical) results will be entirely different. Period. End
of story. Any judgements you care to impose on the two different tools
are entirely your own.

As far as which camera is "better", your illustration regarding
one yielding a finer, tighter grained sharper image, vs the other having a
grainier result.....well using that as a basis of saying one tool is better
than the other is just as stinky a pile of horse shit as the assertion that
tube gear is better than solid state. For my ears, and the way I like to
hear my music, I prefer tubes. But for me to say one is
"better" than the other is as ridiculous as the assertion that
an 8X10 camera is "better" than a 35mm. By the way, I've
seen astounding "artful" images done in 35mm format, and
even pinhole camera format, and I've also seen remarkable journalistic
images that were made when there was no 35mm available, on much
larger and more awkward cameras. Again, if your judgement is that
tighter grain and sharper images are superior than those that exhibit
grain that is simply one persons opinion which may or may not be
shared by others. Just as this tube vs SS debate may yield a similar split
in opinions, there is no one single solution that is
"better"....they're just different. "Better" exists
only in the individuals mind.

Marco

PS I think you must have meant Zone VI camera and not Zone VII as I
know of no such thing as a Zone VII camera. Indeed a wooden field
camera may be less expensive than a 35mm. I don't use field cameras
so am not familiar with their pricing, but I can tell you that a good studio
camera like a Sinar will equal or exceed the price of most 35mm
cameras. The Sinar is just as stone simple as I described, while the
35mm is packed with modern technology. That was the parrallell I was
trying to illustrate. Also, an 8X10 will not yield any "pixels per square
inch" nor will any film camera determine how many pixels per square
inch that you may record the image that it produces in. I'm assuming
you were referring to a tighter grain structure when you said that since
PPI is strictly a digital term and refers to digital image files.

Damn it! After reading Shubert's post I thought there was some new technology that somehow yielded digital information directly from an 8 x 10 film camera without having to scan a chrome or neg. Thanks for bursting my bubble Marco!

I'll try to draw another ANALogy. For the last eight years I've been a digital retoucher at a major motion picture studio in Los Angeles. My job is to fix tits, asses and wrinkles on hot chicks that have their own TV shows, and composite them into goofy scenrios that might not exist in real life. Basically, I make hot chicks and not so hot chicks...look hotter. Yeah, I'm a Photoshop Fag. The files I work with can sometimes get close to four gigabytes big. Lot's of information and lot's of resolution. For my kind of work and what the files will be ultimately used for high resolution is almost always important.

A few years ago when I decided to start experimenting with photography as an extension of my "art" outside of work, I sought the advice of a Dallas based photographer who specializes in the female form.

After long discussions he convinced me that I might enjoy my initial foray into photography more if I went the digital [solid state?] route. After twenty or so years as a pro shooter he dumped his dark room in favor of Photoshop and an Epson inkjet printer, and now shoots only digitally. I know Marco must be yelling "blasphemy!" right now, heheh. This photographer thought that in my case just getting a digital camera and a good printer was all I needed to start since I'm already an image manipulator by trade. Sounds a bit like a novice audiophile starting off with a solid state integrated amp, huh?

On the other hand, when discussing megapixels he made an interesting remark that I never forgot. He said, "more pixels or a sharper image isn't necessarily better..." Without him explaining, I knew exactly what he meant. Over the years, I've seen some incredibly beautiful images created with simple no-frills film [tubes?] cameras. Higher resolution or more information wouldn't enhance their beauty one iota. And I'd be hard pressed to duplicate some of the effects in these film images through digital means. Conversely, I know that I can do many things much easier in Photoshop than can be achieved in a darkroom.

I approach listening to music in a similar manner to creating fine art. While there are technical aspects in achieving both, the goal isn't technical. Whether I am moved by analog, digital, solid state or tubes doesn't matter one bit, as long as I am fulfilled by the result.

I realize what I may love about tubes is their distortion. I also prefer curvy, earthy Latin, Mediterranean women over squeeky clean blondes [some of 'em look like black and white film negatives to me]. Am I saying one is better? No. I just happen to prefer one more than other.

Likewise, it's useless to argue over which approach to amplification is better, especially based on "accuracy". One might as well start a discussion thread entitled "Clean Shaven, Trim or Hairy Momma Bush".

Hey Gunbei, your Dallas friend is absolutely correct; more pixels does NOT a better image make. I've recently given into the digital realm in my own profession as it is a necessary tool these days. I purchased a Nikon D2H at the end of the year to facilitate a portrait project I've been working on. The D2H is the recent state-of-the-art 35mm digital/pro SLR with a new technology used on the chip (Nikons first proprietory technology - they'd been using Sony chips before this). In spite of its sacarafice in pixel count to accomodate faster shooting speeds (and a more spontaneous capability) the images I've produced are both sharper and tighter when upsampled than either the D1X or the D100, both of which have higher pixel counts (D1X is a 5mp camera, D100 is a 6mp, while the new D2H is only a 4mp camera). The quality of the D2H images are more film-like (Analogue if you will) then either the D1X or the D100. To relate that more directly to Audio gear, this would be like someone judging the gear JUST by the numbers. In the case of the cameras it is better to just user your two eyes to make a more informed decision, and with the audio gear, as we all should know by now, use your own ears.

Marco

PS I still prefer an image produced on film over one produced on any digital camera, yet, as in audio, they are coming pretty darn close to one another! I know if I showed most folks some of the images produced with the D2H....or a Canon 1DS....or some of the larger format digital backs I use on jobs, that most people would not be able to tell the difference, and some would even consider digital 'superior' in the remarkable apparent sharpness and detail in renders. Yet, like audio, some of the beauty lost may be in the transitions between the tones, and how smooth (natural) those transitions occur.

Some people just don't get it. And that is okay by me.

It is one thing to try and offer advice to someone who lacks perspective in an attempt to help them.

It is quite another to offer advice to someone who lacks perspective yet thinks they know it all.

Bazaar perspectives have a place in society, as does outright ignorance. Sometimes they are one in the same.

In retrospect, this thread might be considered the perfect troll! Time to take the old F3 on a stroll. :-)