audio and photography parallels??

I don't think the parallel is as close to audio. A digital picture is not recreated by a "sample" of the image - it captures it whole, similar to film. Whereas the film image is created by a chemical reaction stimulated by light onto a finite number of crystals, a digital image is formed by the wavelength of light acting on a finite number of pixels. And, the final product for digital is a color printer - which is where the parallel to film processing ends. Or maybe not - the 10 grand printers do a great job imitating film prints but the off the shelf 200 dollar ones do not. But it may just be a matter of time - after all, photography has a bigger mass market than high end audio.

I, too, consider myself an avid amateur. I could spend hours in a B&H looking at the Canon L Series lenses the way I look at gear in an audio store.

I've been shooting digital SLRs for the past couple years. I recently took a b&w film class at Penn State Univ and while I hate the waiting and the tons of extra work and time that go into developing everything myself, I found my film work to be much more pleasing to me than the majority of my digital work. I was able to capture the dark moody essense of my subjects in a way I've never been able to digitally. That having been said, I still shoot digitally 95% of the time.

I wish I could draw a parallel to vinyl but I've never had a chance to spend much time with a good analog rig. I will say that I listen to CDs because they're convinient (like digital photography) but if I had the time and money I'd probably be listening to vinyl and shooting 6x6 negatives.

Perhaps our friends at Audiogon recognize this parallel as well. Maybe that's why there is this internet site called Photogon... If you haven't already, check it out.

Marco: I know the scanners are very high res. Even a 35 mm produces 100 megabyte file sizes. It's kind of like doing mastering in the digital domain with 24 bit 384 kHz sample rate. It's much easier to master in the digital domain, both photographically and in audio. However, unless you get up to the very high sample rates (Ray Kimber believes at 384 kHz you can't tell from analog) you do lose something. In film, I'm not a professional, so I don't really know how high the resolution and bit depth need to be in order not to lose anything. It would seem if you were at 1/3 the grain size of the film for scanning, but I don't know about bit depth. My original comment was really more of a philosophical one--but you do bring up a good point.

I'm attending Brooks Institute of Photography for my MS. I use multiple
format cameras. Nikon F5, Nikon D1X (digital) and a Horseman LXC 4x5. I
also shoot underwater photography. Digital is still in its infancy and
improving at a rapid rate. However, it has it limitations especially in capturing
very bright objects such as sunsets. It does not hold detail in very bright
subjects. Many student use digital camera in undersea photography and when
they expose for ambient light and there's part of the sun in the image, the
sun is always blown out.

I find the analogy of digital vs. analog in audiophile components true in
photography, as well. As digital images have that "sterile, or digital edge" to
them and lack the "warmth" or realism that film still has. However, with digital
photography's technology rapidly improving, it may be just a matter of time.
But didn't they say that about digital music?

Additionally, image manipulating software such as PhotoShop, allows the
digital photographer to rely on manipulating the image to achieve the disired
effect. Shooting film makes the photographer more sensitive to the subject,
scene and composition of the image. Quicker isn't also superior.

Ross