Digital BW, The Print

Sorry to disagree with you. A CD does not produce a more complete
reproduction of live sound.It produces an engineers interpretation of the
sound and the engineer usually doesn't know a thing about music.There are
harmonics lost in digital reproductions. Most people have never heard live
sound even at concerts. It goes through mikes, speakers, and then the
particular acoustics of the joint the music is played in. The common grumble
is the sound system sucks. Actually music is generally considered the most
abstract of the arts. Didn't mean to get into a music discussion. My only
point is that you hear (some people even listen, too) music and you look at
or see visual media. What you see or hear becomes a personal experience and
the producers of the art aren't ever sure of what another person sees or
hears. I don't care how the creator got there (usually), but I do care about
the creation.

I don't know what a faithful reproduction is. If you are saying that a
photographer is faithfully reproducing a scene then where is the imagination
or the personal interpretation that makes one artist different from another
if all everyone does is reproduce faithfully.

I'm sorry I got into this. I think the equipment becomes more important than
the purpose it's supposed to be used for. My apologies, folks. I hate to
send this.

Barry S.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Pumping up the saturation


>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>