This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this article really neccessary? We could just redirect to photography. -- Gphoto talk 01:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Not in the previous form Alf photoman 18:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Isn't photography with CCD-based cameras by definition digital photography? I am removing all references to CCDs from the article.-- Srleffler 07:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No, CCD's create analog signals which are converted to digital by a/d converters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.151.10 ( talk) 17:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes the output of CCD's is analog. In analog video cameras and camcorders the analog signal is use as the output or recorded on tape. They are, however, the primary sensor for digital photography. Gah4 ( talk) 00:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
How is a camera using a chemical film analogue? Should we not call it a chemical camera? Foreeye ( talk) 15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hate to say it, but technically, any current type of sensory device is analogue. In a digital apparatus, the signal that the sensor receives is converted by a DAC. If I take a photograph with a 135 film camera, develop the film, then scan it to a computer. How is that different from a CCD/CMOS sensor, that creates an electrical charge from collected photons, then that signal is passed trough a micro chip that creates a bit string based on the amount of charge? In reality, a CCD/CMOS sensor is nothing more than a reusable piece of photographic film. Nebrot ( talk) 11:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
My edits are according to Wikipedia policies. Often this means removal of content, especially self-promoting material. If you disagree, that's what this talk page is for. Please stop reverting this without a good reason, thank you. 77.49.102.16 ( talk) 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm putting this up to prompt, perhaps, more meaningful discussion here and to organize and clarify what I see as a problem with the article in its present form (as well as with many of the comments here on the article's talk page); there is first some discussion of the meanings that 'analog' and 'digital' have and then there is a chart summarizing the 'analog' aspects of (some aspects of) photography; this is all given here as 'original research' so I am putting it here rather than in the main article:
The word 'analog' comes from a root meaning 'proportional', but 'an analog' is (in English, at least) something having some physical similarity to something else. 'Analog' as an adjective can mean either 'analog-like' or 'proportional'---the latter has the additional connotation 'continuous-valued'. (The connection of 'proportional' to continuous-valued is not entirely obvious but presumably there is some sort of implication that 'proportional' means 'in any proportion' and not just 'in integer proportion').
Digital things, in the sense that they are digit-like (i.e., like fingers), are discrete-valued (countable) things. Thus, 'digital' is an antonym to analog in its 'in any proportion' sense. Digits are numbers, which are abstract things and not analogies (in that word's 'physical similarity' sense). Thus, 'digital' (in the sense of number-like) is also an antonym to analog in its 'physical similarity' sense.
analog : digital :: continuous : discrete
analog : digital :: real : abstract
Under the (obsolete) regime of continuous-variable physics, digital things and physical things didn't really overlap in either sense. Thus, there is a flavor to digital which implies 'abstract and number-like' while there is a flavor to analog which implies 'real and physical'. Digital electronics and now ubiquitous analog/digital conversion together have blurred the usefulness of the original distinctions. Digital things are now real enough and as proportional-seeming as anything else. Digital things use digital technology and so it has become easier to define 'analog' as 'doesn't use any digital technology'; this distinction is useful in that it precludes things from being 'restored' to analog form after they have been digitized.
analog : digital :: no digital : some digital
So, whereof 'analog photography'? It's a concept that appears to have some established usage. Apparently, however, nobody knows exactly what it means or where the lines of inclusion/exclusion are drawn. Some seem to argue that 'all photography is analog' based either on a claim that all sensors are analog (which is not true; many electronic image sensors are effectively 'digital' since they count photons) or perhaps on the argument that an image is, by definition, an analog. Some say that analog photography is 'synonymous with film photography' (which is also not true; that ignores analog video photography, which even existed for a short time in a 'still' format, as well as some other non-film technologies). Although I disagreed with it's relevance initially (giving instead more weight to other the definitions of 'analog'), I think the 'doesn't use digital technology in the signal path' distinction is useful, even if it does not capture the historicity of the 'analog' concept which is a significant factor in the way the phrase gets used.
sense of 'analog' | film image | traditional photographic print made from film image | scanned and A/D converted film image | print made from scanned and A/D converted film image!sense of 'analog' | vidicon output voltage | vidicon output stored on tape | vidicon output to CRT | charge in CCD imager cells, after exposure | CCD imager readout voltage | CCD imager readout stored on tape | A/D converted CCD imager readout | print made from A/D converted CCD readout |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
physical analogy to the original thing | Yes
(density : intensity) |
Yes
(density : intensity) |
No
(just numbers) |
Yes
(density : intensity) |
Yes
(current : light intensity) |
Yes
(magnetization : intensity; position : time) |
Yes
(intensity : intensity) |
Yes
(electrons : photons) |
Yes
(voltage : intensity; time : position) |
Yes
(magnetization : intensity; position : time) |
No
(just numbers) |
Yes
(density : intensity)
|
continuous-valued | Yes
(grain size is non-uniform) |
Yes | No | ? | Yes | Yes | Yes | No
(stored charge is a discrete quantity) |
Yes
(unless noise is low enough to count charges) |
Yes
(unless noise is low enough to count charges) |
No | ? |
no digital technology in signal path | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | n/a | n/a | n/a | No | No |
-- Soiregistered ( talk) 05:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This is some great original research, but as you know there is no place for that in Wikipedia. The problem is that there was no such term as 'analog photography' until some time after digital photography became popular. Your chart is a nice try to intimidate the layman editors, but 'analog' is not a technical term like you are trying to present it, and has never been used in that sense until this article. So you get such nonsense as "digital photography is analog". Yes, technically it is, but by this point we have well and truly lost the original meaning of the terms, not to mention missed the point of an encyclopedic article. In the same sense, some analog clocks and watches are digital. This is playing with semantics and technicalities. There is no such thing as 'analog photography' in the real world. Even the APUG explain, plainly and clearly, that 'analog' is just a word they use to mean 'traditional' and generally 'not digital'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.223.121 ( talk) 07:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Mhmm Fahim Of Wiki ( talk) 16:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Flickr (and a lot of other sites) seem to define it as film only. http://www.flickr.com/analog phocks ( talk) 03:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
"Analog" and "digital" entered our vocabulary through the world of electronics. They are two different modes of signal processing. People started talking about "digital photography" when they started using cameras that employed digital signal processing techniques to capture, enhance, and store the image. (It's analogous to how they talk about "digital audio," "digital TV," etc.) Nobody ever used to talk about "analog photography," or "analog audio," or "analog" anything, but I'm not surprised. "Analog" has been slowly losing its original meaning ever since the world went digital. As far as most people know, it's sole meaning now is just, "not digital."
If wikipedia needs an entry for "Analog Photography" then it really only needs to be one sentence long: It need only say that analog photography is any form of photography that does not employ digital means to capture, process, store, or reproduce images. 71.199.121.113 ( talk) 15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, "analog" could be used only in the context of electronics, and together with "digital" it makes sense only in connection with computers. Once upon a time there have been Analog Computers and Digital Computers and their names reflected the relationship of their signals to their natural counterparts. Analog ones were, well electrical signals "analog to" the corresponding physical or mathematical value because they changed proportionally to those inside a system that simulated them. The term propagated to general electronic signal processing, e.g. audio technology, because it used essentially the same principles. However, I don't know of any "photographic analog computers" or "photochemical signal processors" or anything else that would connect the photographical process to the term "analog". Like someone said, "analog" has become a colloquialism for "not digital", but I thought Wikipedia is a place where people can get some knowledge, not the "anti-knowledge" ignorant people accumulate. I don't really care if a term gets 50 million hits in Google, it is still incorrect (or stupid), and articles describing those should be limited to something like "a common misconception about...". Otherwise, perhaps we could take all the commonly misspelled words and make a separate article for each of those? Regards, Arny ( talk) 22:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Now I get it! 😀 Fahim Of Wiki ( talk) 16:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a lot of film types currently manufactured that seem to miss on this rather sad (but essential) list. If someone more expert than me on Wikipedia could add all the Lomographic films currently (as of 2014) made (including the lobster, the turquoise, the purple), the Revolog films, the Washi film (manufactured by lomig perrotin), the black and white infrared Orwo manufactured by Filmotec, Rollei Nightbird, Color Implosion, Cine Still 800, etc 109.25.106.37 ( talk) 00:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Analog photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I have expanded this article a little by quoting the reference from Lomography.com. (I have added the definition where the reference is linked and the sub-head Growing reasons for popularity .) For both the edits, its the same source. How can I quote the same reference multiple times. Please help. I want to expand this artcile according to wiki policies. If these edits are acceptable, I will continue to work on it.
Best regards - Veera.sj ( talk) 10:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The name is "film photography" or even better, more neutral and commonly used, "classical photography".
Calling it "analog" is idiotic. It's a neologism that emerged fairly recently, when a critical mass of people formed who either lost their touch with film or never used film. "It's not digital, so it must be analog because everything is either digital or analog". Well tough luck, it doesn't work that way. Lajoswinkler ( talk) 14:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this article really neccessary? We could just redirect to photography. -- Gphoto talk 01:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Not in the previous form Alf photoman 18:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Isn't photography with CCD-based cameras by definition digital photography? I am removing all references to CCDs from the article.-- Srleffler 07:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No, CCD's create analog signals which are converted to digital by a/d converters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.151.10 ( talk) 17:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes the output of CCD's is analog. In analog video cameras and camcorders the analog signal is use as the output or recorded on tape. They are, however, the primary sensor for digital photography. Gah4 ( talk) 00:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
How is a camera using a chemical film analogue? Should we not call it a chemical camera? Foreeye ( talk) 15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hate to say it, but technically, any current type of sensory device is analogue. In a digital apparatus, the signal that the sensor receives is converted by a DAC. If I take a photograph with a 135 film camera, develop the film, then scan it to a computer. How is that different from a CCD/CMOS sensor, that creates an electrical charge from collected photons, then that signal is passed trough a micro chip that creates a bit string based on the amount of charge? In reality, a CCD/CMOS sensor is nothing more than a reusable piece of photographic film. Nebrot ( talk) 11:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
My edits are according to Wikipedia policies. Often this means removal of content, especially self-promoting material. If you disagree, that's what this talk page is for. Please stop reverting this without a good reason, thank you. 77.49.102.16 ( talk) 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm putting this up to prompt, perhaps, more meaningful discussion here and to organize and clarify what I see as a problem with the article in its present form (as well as with many of the comments here on the article's talk page); there is first some discussion of the meanings that 'analog' and 'digital' have and then there is a chart summarizing the 'analog' aspects of (some aspects of) photography; this is all given here as 'original research' so I am putting it here rather than in the main article:
The word 'analog' comes from a root meaning 'proportional', but 'an analog' is (in English, at least) something having some physical similarity to something else. 'Analog' as an adjective can mean either 'analog-like' or 'proportional'---the latter has the additional connotation 'continuous-valued'. (The connection of 'proportional' to continuous-valued is not entirely obvious but presumably there is some sort of implication that 'proportional' means 'in any proportion' and not just 'in integer proportion').
Digital things, in the sense that they are digit-like (i.e., like fingers), are discrete-valued (countable) things. Thus, 'digital' is an antonym to analog in its 'in any proportion' sense. Digits are numbers, which are abstract things and not analogies (in that word's 'physical similarity' sense). Thus, 'digital' (in the sense of number-like) is also an antonym to analog in its 'physical similarity' sense.
analog : digital :: continuous : discrete
analog : digital :: real : abstract
Under the (obsolete) regime of continuous-variable physics, digital things and physical things didn't really overlap in either sense. Thus, there is a flavor to digital which implies 'abstract and number-like' while there is a flavor to analog which implies 'real and physical'. Digital electronics and now ubiquitous analog/digital conversion together have blurred the usefulness of the original distinctions. Digital things are now real enough and as proportional-seeming as anything else. Digital things use digital technology and so it has become easier to define 'analog' as 'doesn't use any digital technology'; this distinction is useful in that it precludes things from being 'restored' to analog form after they have been digitized.
analog : digital :: no digital : some digital
So, whereof 'analog photography'? It's a concept that appears to have some established usage. Apparently, however, nobody knows exactly what it means or where the lines of inclusion/exclusion are drawn. Some seem to argue that 'all photography is analog' based either on a claim that all sensors are analog (which is not true; many electronic image sensors are effectively 'digital' since they count photons) or perhaps on the argument that an image is, by definition, an analog. Some say that analog photography is 'synonymous with film photography' (which is also not true; that ignores analog video photography, which even existed for a short time in a 'still' format, as well as some other non-film technologies). Although I disagreed with it's relevance initially (giving instead more weight to other the definitions of 'analog'), I think the 'doesn't use digital technology in the signal path' distinction is useful, even if it does not capture the historicity of the 'analog' concept which is a significant factor in the way the phrase gets used.
sense of 'analog' | film image | traditional photographic print made from film image | scanned and A/D converted film image | print made from scanned and A/D converted film image!sense of 'analog' | vidicon output voltage | vidicon output stored on tape | vidicon output to CRT | charge in CCD imager cells, after exposure | CCD imager readout voltage | CCD imager readout stored on tape | A/D converted CCD imager readout | print made from A/D converted CCD readout |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
physical analogy to the original thing | Yes
(density : intensity) |
Yes
(density : intensity) |
No
(just numbers) |
Yes
(density : intensity) |
Yes
(current : light intensity) |
Yes
(magnetization : intensity; position : time) |
Yes
(intensity : intensity) |
Yes
(electrons : photons) |
Yes
(voltage : intensity; time : position) |
Yes
(magnetization : intensity; position : time) |
No
(just numbers) |
Yes
(density : intensity)
|
continuous-valued | Yes
(grain size is non-uniform) |
Yes | No | ? | Yes | Yes | Yes | No
(stored charge is a discrete quantity) |
Yes
(unless noise is low enough to count charges) |
Yes
(unless noise is low enough to count charges) |
No | ? |
no digital technology in signal path | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | n/a | n/a | n/a | No | No |
-- Soiregistered ( talk) 05:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This is some great original research, but as you know there is no place for that in Wikipedia. The problem is that there was no such term as 'analog photography' until some time after digital photography became popular. Your chart is a nice try to intimidate the layman editors, but 'analog' is not a technical term like you are trying to present it, and has never been used in that sense until this article. So you get such nonsense as "digital photography is analog". Yes, technically it is, but by this point we have well and truly lost the original meaning of the terms, not to mention missed the point of an encyclopedic article. In the same sense, some analog clocks and watches are digital. This is playing with semantics and technicalities. There is no such thing as 'analog photography' in the real world. Even the APUG explain, plainly and clearly, that 'analog' is just a word they use to mean 'traditional' and generally 'not digital'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.223.121 ( talk) 07:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Mhmm Fahim Of Wiki ( talk) 16:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Flickr (and a lot of other sites) seem to define it as film only. http://www.flickr.com/analog phocks ( talk) 03:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
"Analog" and "digital" entered our vocabulary through the world of electronics. They are two different modes of signal processing. People started talking about "digital photography" when they started using cameras that employed digital signal processing techniques to capture, enhance, and store the image. (It's analogous to how they talk about "digital audio," "digital TV," etc.) Nobody ever used to talk about "analog photography," or "analog audio," or "analog" anything, but I'm not surprised. "Analog" has been slowly losing its original meaning ever since the world went digital. As far as most people know, it's sole meaning now is just, "not digital."
If wikipedia needs an entry for "Analog Photography" then it really only needs to be one sentence long: It need only say that analog photography is any form of photography that does not employ digital means to capture, process, store, or reproduce images. 71.199.121.113 ( talk) 15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, "analog" could be used only in the context of electronics, and together with "digital" it makes sense only in connection with computers. Once upon a time there have been Analog Computers and Digital Computers and their names reflected the relationship of their signals to their natural counterparts. Analog ones were, well electrical signals "analog to" the corresponding physical or mathematical value because they changed proportionally to those inside a system that simulated them. The term propagated to general electronic signal processing, e.g. audio technology, because it used essentially the same principles. However, I don't know of any "photographic analog computers" or "photochemical signal processors" or anything else that would connect the photographical process to the term "analog". Like someone said, "analog" has become a colloquialism for "not digital", but I thought Wikipedia is a place where people can get some knowledge, not the "anti-knowledge" ignorant people accumulate. I don't really care if a term gets 50 million hits in Google, it is still incorrect (or stupid), and articles describing those should be limited to something like "a common misconception about...". Otherwise, perhaps we could take all the commonly misspelled words and make a separate article for each of those? Regards, Arny ( talk) 22:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Now I get it! 😀 Fahim Of Wiki ( talk) 16:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a lot of film types currently manufactured that seem to miss on this rather sad (but essential) list. If someone more expert than me on Wikipedia could add all the Lomographic films currently (as of 2014) made (including the lobster, the turquoise, the purple), the Revolog films, the Washi film (manufactured by lomig perrotin), the black and white infrared Orwo manufactured by Filmotec, Rollei Nightbird, Color Implosion, Cine Still 800, etc 109.25.106.37 ( talk) 00:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Analog photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I have expanded this article a little by quoting the reference from Lomography.com. (I have added the definition where the reference is linked and the sub-head Growing reasons for popularity .) For both the edits, its the same source. How can I quote the same reference multiple times. Please help. I want to expand this artcile according to wiki policies. If these edits are acceptable, I will continue to work on it.
Best regards - Veera.sj ( talk) 10:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The name is "film photography" or even better, more neutral and commonly used, "classical photography".
Calling it "analog" is idiotic. It's a neologism that emerged fairly recently, when a critical mass of people formed who either lost their touch with film or never used film. "It's not digital, so it must be analog because everything is either digital or analog". Well tough luck, it doesn't work that way. Lajoswinkler ( talk) 14:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)