Tube Equipment: Gimmick?

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. :-)

I have an old Nikon FM2N and a new Olympus C5000 Zoom and I can't use either one very well.
Gumbei pretty well brought the fox to ground with his final few words. Look beyond the hair. You'll find no argument there.