It\'s not a great metaphor, though--vinyl is the delivery medium and so are mp3s... Your metaphor would be more analogous to taking an analogue print and then scanning it (which plenty of people do, maybe just for convenience). Some producers still record to tape (Steve Albini, etc.) even for music distributed primarily digitally. And the aesthetic difference between digital and analogue recording is way less significant than the difference between film and digital, which is really the difference between photochemical and analogue converted immediately to digital. No metaphor is going to hit this right because it\'s two totally different worlds.
As a fan of vinyl and darkroom work (who can\'t stand hdr and current mastering techniques, fwiw) but with no patience for either, I\'ve got to respect your dedication to the process. That said, a lot of really great photographers and cinematographers have done tremendously innovative and just amazing work shooting on film and then processing digitally, and to deny the value of their work by worshiping the purity of a process kind of puts the value of art in the medium rather than the artist, which is not a mindset I\'m comfortable with. But on the flip side, a lot of excellent artists are obsessed with the process, so the two are intertwined and there\'s no winning this argument. Do your thing; all you\'re really missing is hdr, instagram, photoshop filters and pixel-peeping. Really it\'s 98% garbage on this side, but the flexibility is pretty alluring.
Aug 02, 2012 at 10:30 PM
Previous versions of Policar's message #10853636 « To film users, a question »
