Digital BW, The Print

B. Alex Pettit Jr. wrote:

 >my last two cents, I promise ;)
 >
 >The difference : how many wish to attentively listen a performance of 
digital saxaphone whereby a most perfectly executed song 'created' by 
the software programmer is rendered at the push of the 'operators' sax 
button ?
 >
 >That is the difference I think many feel with regards to digital 
imaging: a sort of  "if I could afford the software he has, I could do 
the same thing "  The impression I believe, is that the Software 
eliminates the requirement for photographic skill and creativity.
 >
 >
 >
 >
The analogy is essentially flawed...

In your analogy, you argue that the musician equates to a photographer..
  Unfortunately, given your analogy, the photographer would more
reasonably equate to a sound engineer (especially in the "World
according to Austin") recording a Sax performance...  A photographer
captures or creates imagery from pre-existing visual constructs...  The
output of the photographer is NOT simply visual information that a
viewer sees once, like a live performance of the sax is heard as it is
played..  Instead, a photo would equate to a CD, tape, or vinyl album..

So, using the more accurate analogy.. Yes, there are those who hate
cds's and prefer the "warm" sound of vinyl..  However, CDs are
inherently more complete reproducers of the audible portion of the
actual  sound spectrum that was created during the performance..
  Viewers/listeners may prefer a  live performance (akin to a "realistic"
landscape)  or an in studio experimental CD of performance art (akin to
more "abstract" photos)... However, I rarely hear people saying -  "I
won't buy a CD, it's just too easy for the sound engineer to reproduce
perfect  sound...."

In fact, if we examine that analogy more closely, we would note that the
recorded sound is (in the VAST majority of cases) highly tweaked by the
sound engineer to create either the most satisfying musical experience
OR to most faithfully recreate on a stereo the illusion of the sound, as
heard by a listener, being fully faithful to the performance.  In that
latter case, the actual studio software and mixing is done DIGITALLY and
would closely approximate a Photog using Photoshop to tweak an image to
faithful reproduction...  Moreso, that sound is  recorded first, and
then tweaked more substantially as it is mixed and laid down onto later
tracks.,..  Hmmmm..  Sounds a lot like tweaking a saved digital image in
PShop..

OK, now that we have the analogy down...   Although there ARE purists
who prefer "bootlegs" that are untweaked and simply output directly to
vinyl (ultra-purists - I wonder if Austin "prefers" these?) or CD...
Those listeners are few and far between..  Consumers, even in art,
generally want the highest quality they can afford..  "Quality" includes
judgments of the artist's skill, quality of the reproduction, likely
life of the repro..  etc...

That's why we often find ourselves in discussions of wedges, curves,
inksets, papers, and archival quality... To increase the perceived value
of our items...

Keith