Why do photographers want to make their digital images look like film anyway…?

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 minutes ago, Homo Faber said:

...Even the best stereo in the world will make bad music into something worth listening to...

I agree with your post with the exception of this bit. There is music which would still be absolutely unlistenable - for me - regardless of the quality of 'kit'.

Then again; there is no way that my wife will ever listen to the works by Gilbert and Sullivan so nobody is perfect!......😸......

Philip.

[Deeetona]

9 minutes ago, Deeetona said:

When it comes to music, I love to listen to late 1960s/early 1970s recordings. At that time mixing consoles such as EMI's TG12345  introduced transistors (replacing valve tubes) which led to a much more transparent sound. Mastering was still done by 1" reel to reel tape machines, adding pleasurable compression and "warmth".

1950s music sounds too harsh/grammophony to me. Steely Dan, on the other hand, perfectionized the "yacht rock" sound, which in my ears, is one of the most timeless sounds. With the arrival of PPG, Simmons, Fairlight CMI etc., a new kind of sound emerged, and when artists started to record direct to disk via Synclavier, and CDs came up, things changed dramaticallly.

Even the modern day wobbly Fender Rhodes from a sampler's library is not the real thing, it just artificially recreates something which sounds much better in irs original form.

And the same patters can be seen in photography. Maybe the golden years were the ones with black cameras clad in black vulcanite:-))))

"The Black Vulcanite Years - Medallions on hairy chests, Minimoogs, and CBS era large headstock Strats - Touring can make you crazy"

Cue some Rollei SL66s and chunky Mamiyas.

[Homo Faber]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb Deeetona:

When it comes to music, I love to listen to late 1960s/early 1970s recordings. At that time mixing consoles such as EMI's TG12345  introduced transistors (replacing valve tubes) which led to a much more transparent sound. Mastering was still done by 1" reel to reel tape machines, adding pleasurable compression and "warmth".

1950s music sounds too harsh/grammophony to me. Steely Dan, on the other hand, perfectionized the "yacht rock" sound, which in my ears, is one of the most timeless sounds. With the arrival of PPG, Simmons, Fairlight CMI etc., a new kind of sound emerged, and when artists started to record direct to disk via Synclavier, and CDs came up, things changed dramaticallly.

Even the modern day wobbly Fender Rhodes from a sampler's library is not the real thing, it just artificially recreates something which sounds much better in irs original form.

And the same patters can be seen in photography. Maybe the golden years were the ones with black cameras clad in black vulcanite:-))))

"Abbey Road" by the Beatles was the first (and their last unfortunately) record the band recorded on the TG12345. One clearly can hear the difference  to their earlier records like the White album which were recorded with a tube console. But iirc the lads didn't care as much for the different sound as they were keen on the more advanced TG12345 because of expanded recording options. For the first they were able to record a whole album to an eight track tape recording machine.

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, Homo Faber said:

That is so true. Content beats form, always.  Of course, it's more fun to listen to good music on a good stereo than on a bad one.  But two other sentences are equally true. Even the best stereo in the world will make bad music into something worth listening to. And good music - well performed and with a musical message - will always be good music, even if it comes from a portable radio in mono. 

I don't play the piano and am only slightly aware of the rabbit hole potentials of antique guitars, but I love music. I have an off-and-on relationship with an early 70s Selmer Tenor that I cannot let go of. I also bought a rare, silver, vintage Conn trumpet some time ago. But I sadly realised that bringing me to a level where I am happy will cost me 2 hours a day for the next 5 years, which I'm not willing to invest. But I can discern the subtle differences in the sound of that instrument compared to a Yamaha student trumpet, even as an absolute beginner. 

That's why I can relate very much to audiophiles who have no idea how music is made or what the experience is like if you create music. There is a massive difference between making and consuming music. Both are equally valuable, and quality does make a difference. For my part, I'm not interested in proper hi-fi. If I want the real stuff, I challenge myself and pick up that horn. But I love listening to music in my car–loud and dirty, no subtleties required, only proper rock and roll. 

(By the way, all that explains why I prefer film over digital.)

 

Edited January 20 by hansvons

[Alberti]

About audio: i design & make the electronic stuff myself. Don't ever consider start doing it. I made a mess of it, my character I'm afraid. But it sounds swell.

About celluloid developing/digital. I liked the film, moved between Agfa 25 and Tri-X and back, rolls of it. Overdeveloped 3x exposure. yes sharp. But never consistent. My friends were great in it, and even though I had studied pharmacy, and thus should be aware that yes I would have to and could be consistent, I always was experimenting. A little bit here or there, stock developer or used? How fresh is the fixer? (I got canisters from my brother. But once I processed a series for hanging in the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam - that got brown after three weeks. Yach.) So my personality just never matched with film.

Quote

Soft resolution: 35mm film is a small film format with a lower resolution than other types of analog film. This means that 35mm photos may have a grainy or slightly blurry quality to them, which some photographers prefer to the sharp definition of digital photos.

Digital. All at once, here I have this beautiful red or black dot camera.  Clean?  Depends.

Now that CCD - Isn't it Kodak 25? Slide film? The M9M. Isn't it like a 6x6 output? No word of vague/blurry here! Why go for less? 

On the M240 you can change lenses and see the differences in vintageness. That means: in the contrast and depth. I see more differences than on that crop format (of course: lenses are worse in the corner). We lost a few things though maybe. yes, it is the CCD vs. CMOS surface rendering, the nano-contrast! 

On the M10-R the differences between lenses are totally different. As to the output? Grainy and Slightly Blurry? Yes you can now find it! Especially so when very sharp asph lenses of the newest generation are used. So much so that some rejected the camera (Steven?) when it was launched. It requires a lot of practice to handle. Blurry? I need a tripod . .  I need a 2x enlarger eye-piece. I need an electronic viewer. . .  Funny. It often has - when looked at at 100% all the bad characteristics of inferior film. I can then see there is something gone wrong. 

. Well OK, lets be a bit more nuanced here. But. I liked the M240 files sort of more, less clear defaults in my sloppy way of working.  M240 (=M262) were not clean digital to me. Cleanliness depends very much on the developer used, imho. For years I already have the sharpening on low : for instance, I retained in C1 the Soft Look setting at import. 

It is clear, I will not go so far as some here on the forum who habitually slide the Presence/Clarity slider to the left to soften to give a Nocti glow.

The only reason I sometimes take a film 'look' from a preset is because it aborts some colours and replaces these with another unexpected tint. Or gives a contrast I like.

But never ever will a software profile give the authentic & original Tri-X/D-76 effect; I just keep it as is - the M9M @ 320 looks like Documol is used; and at 1250 ASA it comes closer to Tri-X! 

So I agree with the OP . What else? 

Edited January 20 by Alberti

[Anthony MD]

3 hours ago, Deeetona said:

When it comes to music, I love to listen to late 1960s/early 1970s recordings. At that time mixing consoles such as EMI's TG12345  introduced transistors (replacing valve tubes) which led to a much more transparent sound. Mastering was still done by 1" reel to reel tape machines, adding pleasurable compression and "warmth".

1950s music sounds too harsh/grammophony to me. Steely Dan, on the other hand, perfectionized the "yacht rock" sound, which in my ears, is one of the most timeless sounds. With the arrival of PPG, Simmons, Fairlight CMI etc., a new kind of sound emerged, and when artists started to record direct to disk via Synclavier, and CDs came up, things changed dramaticallly.

Even the modern day wobbly Fender Rhodes from a sampler's library is not the real thing, it just artificially recreates something which sounds much better in irs original form.

And the same patters can be seen in photography. Maybe the golden years were the ones with black cameras clad in black vulcanite:-))))

The classical Golden Era LPs using tube electronics, 60’s and 70’s, sound the best.  Later on transistors replaced tubes resulting in the harsh sound compared to those using tubes.  Classical recordings consisting of the entire orchestra were too bright and harsh with the transistor recordings.  The Golden Era LPs are much more desirable for their sound…🎙️

Edited January 20 by Anthony MD

[Deeetona]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not sure. I believe hybrid (e.g. mixing desk with transitors) worked better in a multitrack recording setting. mastering was done on tape anyway, and then cut onto records.

[Homo Faber]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Anthony MD:

The classical Golden Era LPs using tube electronics, 60’s and 70’s, sound the best.  Later on transistors replaced tubes resulting in the harsh sound compared to those using tubes.  Classical recordings consisting of the entire orchestra were too bright and harsh with the transistor recordings.  The Golden Era LPs are much more desirable for their sound…🎙️

I am afraid that is not entirly true. The golden era of recordmaking were the 70‘s with the advent of those 16 or even 24 channel record consoles like Neve , SSL or API. All those consoles were transistor based. A 16 (let alone 24) channel, tube-based mixing console would simply not have been practical: too expensive and complicated to manufacture, too maintenance-intensive and, above all, too noisy: With such a large number of individual tracks, distortion and noise would have added up too much.

Edited January 20 by Homo Faber

[Deeetona]

Exactly - wasnt 16/24 track recording largely enabled via transitors?

Edited January 20 by Deeetona

[Homo Faber]

vor 31 Minuten schrieb Deeetona:

Exactly - wasnt 16/24 track recording largely enabled via transitors?

Yes. Like e.g. the custom made 28 channel Neve 8028 at Sound City in L.A.
 

Zitat

 

 

[Anthony MD]

1 hour ago, Homo Faber said:

I am afraid that is not entirly true. The golden era of recordmaking were the 70‘s with the advent of those 16 or even 24 channel record consoles like Neve , SSL or API. All those consoles were transistor based. A 16 (let alone 24) channel, tube-based mixing console would simply not have been practical: too expensive and complicated to manufacture, too maintenance-intensive and, above all, too noisy: With such a large number of individual tracks, distortion and noise would have added up too much.

Actually the ASD, Decca, SAX, Mercury Living Presence and RCA Golden Era recordings were mastered using tubes not transistors…🎙️

Edited January 20 by Anthony MD

[Homo Faber]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb Anthony MD:

Actually the ASD, Decca, SAX, Mercury Living Presence and RCA Golden Era recordings were mastered using tubes not transistors…🎙️

Please don't change the subject. You were talking about recordmaking. Records in the 70's (which is widely believed to be the golden era of recordmaking)  were made (recorded) using large frame consoles (LFC) on transistor basis. And then they were mastered on a two track basis. The mastering back then was no big deal and rather a technicality than an artistic process. The mastering of those "golden era records" you mentioned are remaster invented by the record companies to sell us the same music over and over again.

[Anthony MD]

19 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

Actually the ASD, Decca, SAX, Mercury Living Presence and RCA Golden Era recordings were mastered using tubes not transistors…🎙️

Golden Era LP’s are from the late 50’s -late 60’s.  Transistors were used in the 70’s…🎙️

Edited January 20 by Anthony MD

[Anthony MD]

Some labels that used tubed amplifiers and lathes…🎙️

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Paulus]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Anthony MD:

Some labels that used tubed amplifiers and lathes…🎙️

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Is this the Yehudi M /
Bath 1959 recording? In that case,  I rather hear a Brandenburg Concerto played by Gustav Leonard or John Eliot Gardiner, or Ton Koopman , for what is the use  of this “ quality “ when the performance is below mediocre? A LP record cannot make up for the poor quality of the musicians. Also when it’s  off key and poorly played , so poorly that it degrades the polyphony Bach had in mind. 

[Anthony MD]

58 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Is this the Yehudi M /
Bath 1959 recording? In that case,  I rather hear a Brandenburg Concerto played by Gustav Leonard or John Eliot Gardiner, or Ton Koopman , for what is the use  of this “ quality “ when the performance is below mediocre? A LP record cannot make up for the poor quality of the musicians. Also when it’s  off key and poorly played , so poorly that it degrades the polyphony Bach had in mind. 

The recording is worth a lot because of the rarity!
I have thousands of recordings.  That’s just an example to show what labels were using tubes at that time…🎙️

Edited January 20 by Anthony MD

[Paulus]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Anthony MD:

The recording is worth a lot because of the rarity!
I have thousands of recordings.  That’s just an example to show what labels were using tubes at that time…🎙️

I’m sorry, I thought it was an exemple of quality. Maybe I was to harsh. 

[Anthony MD]

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

Is this the Yehudi M /
Bath 1959 recording? In that case,  I rather hear a Brandenburg Concerto played by Gustav Leonard or John Eliot Gardiner, or Ton Koopman , for what is the use  of this “ quality “ when the performance is below mediocre? A LP record cannot make up for the poor quality of the musicians. Also when it’s  off key and poorly played , so poorly that it degrades the polyphony Bach had in mind. 

Did you listen to this recording on the actual 1959 Lp?
Why do you think this recording is poorly played…?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited January 20 by Anthony MD

[Anthony MD]

10 minutes ago, Paulus said:

I’m sorry, I thought it was an exemple of quality. Maybe I was to harsh. 

Well, the LPs using tubed amplifiers and lathes sound better than the ones using transistors even if the performance doesn’t quite satisfy…🎙️

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Anthony MD]

14 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

Did you listen to this recording on the actual 1959 Lp?
Why do you think this recording is poorly played…?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!