[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

A statement such as William's that there is no "ambience" or such
in the recording is a red flag that something is missing at one end
or the other.

I said very little. I also listened with STAX Lambda headphones.


Not critiquing William's system, because I have never heard it.

You'd better not. It's Apogee speakers with Curl electronics.


But if he is playing back on his Ambisonics system a recording that has
no such sound then he may be criticizing the wrong end of the process.

I can play back in almost any surround format, or just plain stereo. I would
never critique a stereo recording by running it through UHJ enhancement.
Though maybe I should...

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...
Ron C wrote:

Yes, I have noticed the thread has moved from natural to artistic
choices.

Even "natural" attempts require "artistic choices".

Perhaps I [should?] set out to make a recording that suits WS's prefs
as best I can. I must decide where to position the mics. No rule will
tell me where to place them. I'll have to make this up. The sound
captured may vary drastically across mic positions not so far apart
placement. Etc.

Mic placement will drive you crazy. It's no wonder so many recordings are
multi-miked.

Only binaural and Ambisonic recording offer a rational approach.
Unfortunately, both are commercial non-viable.

[MiNe109]

On 9/29/14, 8:06 PM, Neil wrote:
On 9/29/2014 2:51 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

What would consider the photographic equivalent of the Stroh violin?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroh_violin

I don't know, but most likely a failure of some kind or other. ;-D

Of course, the Stroh was for recording, not a recorder. A local
violinist has one and enjoys it for hot club jazz.

The University of Texas has a candidate for "world's first photograph":

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibition...rstphotograph/

Stephen

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...
On 29/09/2014 23:10, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.

So, in your mind, they are the equivalent of modern slide film? I use
filters on that as well.

I've also seen daguerreotypes, and they're nothing like the original scene
as seen or captured by modern equipment.

Nothing like? The principal differences are that daguerreotypes were made with
poorer lenses than we have today, and they were sensitive only to blue light.
Other than that, a daguerreotype image should be close to one taken with
modern B&W materials.


If you want a direct observation of the compromises that have to be made by
photographers, go to Lacock Abbey in England, where you can reproduce the
world's first photograph, as taken by Fox-Talbot.

The first photograph was taken by Niépce, using bitumen of Judea as the
sensitive material. Fox-Talbot developed the first negative-positive process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Daguerre

Because a daguerreotype image could not be manipulated (other than by changing
the initial exposure), the process would not have been commercially successful
unless the image was a "reasonable" representation of the subject.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 9/29/2014 2:51 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

An early daguerreotype much-more closely resembles the object
in front of the camera, than an acoustic recording (or for that matter,
an electrical one) resembles the sound of the instrument at the horn
or mic.

I've seen many Daguerrotypes, but not a single one that had color.

That doesn't change the fact that a daguerreotype is far more accurate at
doing what it does than an acoustic recording.

Daguerreotypes sometimes showed a color image, before they were fixed. This
was later explained as the result of interference patterns in the extremely
thin silver-halide layer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippmann_plate

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message ...
On 29/09/2014 23:10, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.

So, in your mind, they are the equivalent of modern slide film? I use
filters on that as well.

I've also seen daguerreotypes, and they're nothing like the original scene
as seen or captured by modern equipment.

Nothing like? The principal differences are that daguerreotypes were made with
poorer lenses than we have today, and they were sensitive only to blue light.
Other than that, a daguerreotype image should be close to one taken with
modern B&W materials.

What's weird about the daguerreotype is that it's a metallic reflected image,
which makes it almost pellucid. The grey scale changes as you change angle.

If you have ever viewed a modern gelatin negative by reflected light against
a black cloth in order to see a positive image, the process is much like that.

It's a very strange look. Is it realistic? Is it art? To answer those you
have to define realism and art and that's not my MOS. I just fix radios.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...
On 30/09/2014 1:18 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you
get" process.

Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely
printed a negative "straight"?

Exactly, which was because he did his best to overcome the compromises
of film and paper in the darkroom. These days we use all the tricks of
Photoshop for exactly the same reasons, compromises still have to be
made, "what you see" in real life is certainly NOT "what you get" in print.

And an acoustic recording delivers significantly higher fidelity?

Which is the point I've been making, but one seems to grasp.

Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound recording.

[William Sommerwerck]

"MiNe109" wrote in message ...

The University of Texas has a candidate for "world's first photograph":
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibition...irstphotograph

This is generally considered the first true photograph. No other candidate has
ever shown up.

[Luxey]

On Monday, 29 September 2014 21:04:15 UTC+2, John Williamson wrote:
On 29/09/2014 16:18, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

William Sommerwerck wrote:



I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike

photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but

that's the way it is.



Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system would

not have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many

compromises

in the photographic process, but they don't eliminate them. If

printing the

image didn't require compromises, there would be one kind of paper, one

kind of printer, etc., and it should be obvious to anyone familiar with

photography that no two printers (much less chemical processors) will

give

identical results, ergo, there are compromises.



Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound

recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you get"

process.



Oh, no it hasn't. Going back to the early days of black and white,

severe compromises had to be made to get the grey scale on the final

print to even remotely resemble what what the unaided human eye saw at

the time the picture was taken. Filters over the lens when taking the

picture to overcome the bad colour response of early films, for instance.



Coming forward to modern digital sensors, the compromises have got less,

and are often hidden by the camera from the end user, (Kind of like

using AGC on audio) but the amplitude response curve of film and digital

sensors and output devices is nowhere near as great as the human eye can

cope with and, especially for film, is nowhere near linear. For this

reason, high dynamic range techniques such as one picture with

under-exposure followed by one with over-exposure and finally using

gamma correction are now used to cover the full amplitude range.



As a result of all this, compromises are made when producing *every*

decent picture, and ones where those compromises haven't been made are

snapshots at best. Take one example. On a Sunny day, you see a landscape

with a blue sky, clouds optional. If you take and print a straight

picture of that, using either film or a digital sensor, you see either

an underexposed foreground, which needs to be lifted out of the noise,

or a burnt out white sky, which has to have it's colours altered, or in

severe cases added from another picture.



Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely

printed a negative "straight"?



I'd have guessed at never, except to make a point.





--

Tciao for Now!



John.

Can't stand HDR photography. Let that gimmick soon be forgotten.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

What's weird about the daguerreotype is that it's a metallic reflected
image,
which makes it almost pellucid. The grey scale changes as you change angle.

If you have ever viewed a modern gelatin negative by reflected light against
a black cloth in order to see a positive image, the process is much like
that.

This works with any type of negative, including a glass plate.

If the image is held at an angle -- especially with a black cloth behind it --
light is reflected by the silver areas (the dark areas of the scene) and pass
through the clear areas (the light areas of the scene).

This effect was used in the ambrotype, a glass negative mounted on black
velvet. Because no printing was needed, the customer could have the image not
long after the negative was processed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrotype


It's a very strange look. Is it realistic? Is it art? To answer those you
have to define realism and art and that's not my MOS. I just fix radios.

If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's "realistic".

[John Williamson]

On 30/09/2014 14:50, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 29/09/2014 23:10, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.

So, in your mind, they are the equivalent of modern slide film? I use
filters on that as well.

I've also seen daguerreotypes, and they're nothing like the original
scene as seen or captured by modern equipment.

Nothing like? The principal differences are that daguerreotypes were
made with poorer lenses than we have today, and they were sensitive only
to blue light. Other than that, a daguerreotype image should be close to
one taken with modern B&W materials.

Which, to use an audio analogy, is like saying that making recordings
using a carbon microphone, and a low pass filter is close to what we can
do now.

If you want a direct observation of the compromises that have to be
made by photographers, go to Lacock Abbey in England, where you can
reproduce the world's first photograph, as taken by Fox-Talbot.

The first photograph was taken by Niépce, using bitumen of Judea as the
sensitive material. Fox-Talbot developed the first negative-positive
process.

Which is what most of us call a photograph, but I'll give you that point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Daguerre

Because a daguerreotype image could not be manipulated (other than by
changing the initial exposure), the process would not have been
commercially successful unless the image was a "reasonable"
representation of the subject.

Or, it was as close as a sketch (The alternative at the time) but more
fashionable and didn't involve finding an artist.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 30/09/2014 15:06, Luxey wrote:
Can't stand HDR photography. Let that gimmick soon be forgotten.

I use it the same way as I use any other effect/ compromise in
photography. Like some audio effects, it can either be "In your face" or
subtle.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

What's weird about the daguerreotype is that it's a metallic
reflected image,
which makes it almost pellucid. The grey scale changes as you change
angle.

If you have ever viewed a modern gelatin negative by reflected light
against a black cloth in order to see a positive image, the process
is much like that.

This works with any type of negative, including a glass plate.

If the image is held at an angle -- especially with a black cloth
behind it -- light is reflected by the silver areas (the dark areas
of the scene) and pass through the clear areas (the light areas of
the scene).

This effect was used in the ambrotype, a glass negative mounted on
black velvet. Because no printing was needed, the customer could have
the image not long after the negative was processed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrotype


It's a very strange look. Is it realistic? Is it art? To answer
those you have to define realism and art and that's not my MOS. I
just fix radios.

If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's "realistic".

However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation of the
subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic painting. They
can all be good art and communicate well, but if you're willing to allow
that much leeway in the definition of "a good representation of the
subject", then the worst audio recordings should tickle your fancy just
fine, even with regard to spacial representation.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 9/29/2014 2:51 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

An early daguerreotype much-more closely resembles the object
in front of the camera, than an acoustic recording (or for that
matter, an electrical one) resembles the sound of the instrument at
the horn or mic.

I've seen many Daguerrotypes, but not a single one that had color.

That doesn't change the fact that a daguerreotype is far more
accurate at doing what it does than an acoustic recording.

Well, that's a matter of opinion, and is dependent on which qualities one
considers important.

To draw that analogy back to the discussion, there are compromises in the
production of Daguearrotypes, such as lens selection, which will impact the
representation of the scene in a similar way that mic selection impacts the
representation of the acoustic environment.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message ...
On 30/09/2014 1:18 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you
get" process.

Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams
rarely printed a negative "straight"?

Exactly, which was because he did his best to overcome the
compromises
of film and paper in the darkroom. These days we use all the tricks
of Photoshop for exactly the same reasons, compromises still have to
be
made, "what you see" in real life is certainly NOT "what you get" in
print.

And an acoustic recording delivers significantly higher fidelity?

Which is the point I've been making, but one seems to grasp.

We grasp it, we just disagree with you about it. IMO, they're all flawed for
similar reasons, and whether or not those flaws matter depends on the
consumer.

Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
recording.

I *really* disagree with this opinion. Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil

[MiNe109]

On 9/30/14, 9:00 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"MiNe109" wrote in message ...

The University of Texas has a candidate for "world's first photograph":
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibition...irstphotograph

This is generally considered the first true photograph. No other
candidate has ever shown up.

Shroud of Turin?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos...ograph/?no-ist

No, I'm not serious. Lengthy ad.

Stephen

[Tom McCreadie]

William Sommerwerck" wrote:

Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound recording.

These kinds of patently absurd, sweeping claims give trolls a bad name. :-)

For instance, look out at the fall colors in your garden. With a B/W photo, all
that wide gamut of colors would be mapped over to a smaller subset of gray scale
tones. How, by any stretch of the imagination, or semantic wriggling, can you
then say that the B/W photo (powerful and compelling as it may well be) has a
high degree of 'fidelity' to what you see. (maybe to what your dog sees :-))
--
Tom McCreadie

[[email protected]]

How, by any stretch of the imagination, or semantic wriggling, can you

then say that the B/W photo (powerful and compelling as it may well be) has a

high degree of 'fidelity' to what you see. (maybe to what your dog sees :-))

--

Tom McCreadie

not to mention that reality is 3D while photographs are 2D.
this thread has reached absurdity.

Mark

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

That doesn't change the fact that a daguerreotype is far more
accurate at doing what it does than an acoustic recording.

Well, that's a matter of opinion, and is dependent on which
qualities one considers important.

Let's see... If you had to choose as to whether photography remained at its
daguerreotype stage and never advanced, or sound recording remained
permanently stuck at acoustic recording -- which would you choose?

QED.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's "realistic".

However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
painting.

The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?

I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about representation.

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...
On 30/09/2014 14:50, William Sommerwerck wrote:

The first photograph was taken by Niépce, using bitumen of Judea
as the sensitive material. Fox-Talbot developed the first negative-
positive process.

Which is what most of us call a photograph, but I'll give you that point.

Oh, thank you. I suppose, then, a Kodachrome is not a photograph.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Daguerre

Because a daguerreotype image could not be manipulated (other than by
changing the initial exposure), the process would not have been
commercially successful unless the image was a "reasonable"
representation of the subject.

Or, it was as close as a sketch (The alternative at the time) but more
fashionable and didn't involve finding an artist.

Which proves what? A daguerreotype is a far more "accurate" rendition than a
sketch.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
recording.

I *really* disagree with this opinion.

It's not an opinion. It's fact. I gave an example in a recent post that
demonstrated this.

I proved with mathematical certainty that someone had an extra key to the ward
room.


Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)

There have always been lenses of different focal lengths (though not as a wide
a range as we've had since the middle of the 20th century). In what sense does
the presumed "compromise" of not having lenses that go from 13mm to 2000mm
have a parallel in sound recording?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck" wrote:

Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
recording.

These kinds of patently absurd, sweeping claims give trolls a bad name. :-)

For instance, look out at the fall colors in your garden. With a B/W photo,
all
that wide gamut of colors would be mapped over to a smaller subset of gray
scale
tones. How, by any stretch of the imagination, or semantic wriggling, can
you
then say that the B/W photo (powerful and compelling as it may well be) has
a
high degree of 'fidelity' to what you see. (maybe to what your dog sees :-))

Do you understand English? Do you understand what words mean? Apparently not.
I said...

"Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound recording."

Do you know what that means? It //does not// mean that "the B/W photo
(powerful and compelling as it may well be) has a high degree of 'fidelity' to
what you see".

If you don't understand what words mean, what is the point of discussing
anything? But then, of course, anyone who presents an idea that forces you to
//think// is someone who engages in semantic wriggling -- or a troll.

Human beings "know what they know", and it is virtually impossible to get them
to consider any point of view that does not match their mental knee-jerk
reactions.

[Scott Dorsey]

I would just like to say that in the past four decades I have heard a lot of
people make analogies between photography and audio recording and in every
single instance that I can think of the discussion broke down into a senseless
argument. So I am inclined to avoid this particular analogy at all costs.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tom McCreadie]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:59:58 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
.. .
William Sommerwerck" wrote:

Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
recording.

These kinds of patently absurd, sweeping claims give trolls a bad name. :-)

For instance, look out at the fall colors in your garden. With a B/W photo,
all
that wide gamut of colors would be mapped over to a smaller subset of gray
scale
tones. How, by any stretch of the imagination, or semantic wriggling, can
you
then say that the B/W photo (powerful and compelling as it may well be) has
a
high degree of 'fidelity' to what you see. (maybe to what your dog sees :-))

Do you understand English? Do you understand what words mean? Apparently not.
I said...

"Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound recording."

Do you know what that means? It //does not// mean that "the B/W photo
(powerful and compelling as it may well be) has a high degree of 'fidelity' to
what you see".

If you don't understand what words mean, what is the point of discussing
anything? But then, of course, anyone who presents an idea that forces you to
//think// is someone who engages in semantic wriggling -- or a troll.

Human beings "know what they know", and it is virtually impossible to get them
to consider any point of view that does not match their mental knee-jerk
reactions.
So please then enlighten us - for once, in concrete terms; no more resorting to
higher level, superficial generalities - exactly what you mean.

Most of the thread respondents are perceiving you to claim that photographs
_always_ have had a greater fidelity to what people saw when they looked at the
scene, compared to the fidelity of a sound recording to what people heard when
they listened to the music.

As Scott mentioned, it's unconstructive to push these flawed picture / sound
analogies, to try to make a point. Sight and sound inhabit different conceptual
spaces and don't lend themselves to a straight qualitative comparison, let alone
a quantitative one, in quest of some sort of insight.

The claim "Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
recording", besides having several convenient semantic/definitions escape
routes, is about as helpful as saying "a hedgehog in its nest is closer to true
safety than a baby in a warm bath is close to true happiness".
--
Tom McCreadie

Live at The London Palindrome - ABBA

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's "realistic".

However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
painting.

The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?

I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about representation.

And so is he€¦

Consider that "representation" may be in the eye of the beholder€¦

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

I would just like to say that in the past four decades I have heard a lot of
people make analogies between photography and audio recording and in every
single instance that I can think of the discussion broke down into a senseless
argument. So I am inclined to avoid this particular analogy at all costs.
--scott

"Ear, ear, and Eye, eye!"

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Tom McCreadie wrote:

The claim "Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than
sound recording", besides having several convenient semantic/definitions
escape routes, is about as helpful as saying "a hedgehog in its nest is
closer to true safety than a baby in a warm bath is close to true
happiness".

Damn, Tom, that's GOOD!

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

That doesn't change the fact that a daguerreotype is far more
accurate at doing what it does than an acoustic recording.

Well, that's a matter of opinion, and is dependent on which
qualities one considers important.

Let's see... If you had to choose as to whether photography remained at its
daguerreotype stage and never advanced, or sound recording remained
permanently stuck at acoustic recording -- which would you choose?

QED.

If elephants had wings, how many pies would it take a pig to make an
apple?

QWTF.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Luxey]

уторак, 30. �ептембар 2014. 19.10.27 UTC+2, John Williamson је напи�ао/ла:
On 30/09/2014 15:06, Luxey wrote:

Can't stand HDR photography. Let that gimmick soon be forgotten.



I use it the same way as I use any other effect/ compromise in

photography. Like some audio effects, it can either be "In your face" or

subtle.



--

Tciao for Now!



John.

Point taken, but obviously you understood my sentiment.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 9/30/2014 4:52 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
recording.

I *really* disagree with this opinion.
Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)

There have always been lenses of different focal lengths (though not as
a wide a range as we've had since the middle of the 20th century). In
what sense does the presumed "compromise" of not having lenses that go
from 13mm to 2000mm have a parallel in sound recording?

The point is that *every* lens has compromises by design, whether in
DOF, color rendition, perspective distortion, resolution, etc., it's an
unavoidable aspect of lens design. Two lenses of different design will
not render a scene in the same manner, just as two microphones of
different design will not respond to an acoustic environment in the same
manner. Furthermore, every step in either process after those components
also impacts the "fidelity" of the final product, therefore, "fidelity"
becomes largely a matter of what is important to the producer, since
that is all the consumer has direct access to.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 9/30/2014 6:49 PM, Tom McCreadie wrote:

The claim "Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
recording", besides having several convenient semantic/definitions escape
routes, is about as helpful as saying "a hedgehog in its nest is closer to true
safety than a baby in a warm bath is close to true happiness".

Excellent response, Tom!
--
best regards,

Neil

[geoff]

On 1/10/2014 1:26 p.m., Neil wrote:
On 9/30/2014 4:52 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
recording.

I *really* disagree with this opinion.
Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)

There have always been lenses of different focal lengths (though not as
a wide a range as we've had since the middle of the 20th century). In
what sense does the presumed "compromise" of not having lenses that go
from 13mm to 2000mm have a parallel in sound recording?

The point is that *every* lens has compromises by design, whether in
DOF, color rendition, perspective distortion, resolution, etc., it's an
unavoidable aspect of lens design. Two lenses of different design will
not render a scene in the same manner, just as two microphones of
different design will not respond to an acoustic environment in the same
manner. Furthermore, every step in either process after those components
also impacts the "fidelity" of the final product, therefore, "fidelity"
becomes largely a matter of what is important to the producer, since
that is all the consumer has direct access to.


I've never heard a lens being described as having a particular
'character' in the way almost all mics do ! (focal-length and gross
technical flaws excepted).

geoff

[Luxey]

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 06:50:50 UTC+2, geoff wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:26 p.m., Neil wrote:

On 9/30/2014 4:52 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

William Sommerwerck wrote:



Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound

recording.



I *really* disagree with this opinion.

Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)



There have always been lenses of different focal lengths (though not as

a wide a range as we've had since the middle of the 20th century). In

what sense does the presumed "compromise" of not having lenses that go

from 13mm to 2000mm have a parallel in sound recording?



The point is that *every* lens has compromises by design, whether in

DOF, color rendition, perspective distortion, resolution, etc., it's an

unavoidable aspect of lens design. Two lenses of different design will

not render a scene in the same manner, just as two microphones of

different design will not respond to an acoustic environment in the same

manner. Furthermore, every step in either process after those components

also impacts the "fidelity" of the final product, therefore, "fidelity"

becomes largely a matter of what is important to the producer, since

that is all the consumer has direct access to.





I've never heard a lens being described as having a particular

'character' in the way almost all mics do ! (focal-length and gross

technical flaws excepted).



geoff

You missed "soft" and "fast"? Character in mics is just that, technical flaw
we learned to live with and gave it a pet name.

[John Williamson]

On 30/09/2014 21:46, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 30/09/2014 14:50, William Sommerwerck wrote:

The first photograph was taken by Niépce, using bitumen of Judea
as the sensitive material. Fox-Talbot developed the first negative-
positive process.

Which is what most of us call a photograph, but I'll give you that point.

Oh, thank you. I suppose, then, a Kodachrome is not a photograph.

Not in common parlance round here, no. It's a slide. Even when it's not
mounted as one. Then again, people still talk about watching a film,
even when it's been digitally produced and projected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Daguerre

Because a daguerreotype image could not be manipulated (other than by
changing the initial exposure), the process would not have been
commercially successful unless the image was a "reasonable"
representation of the subject.

Or, it was as close as a sketch (The alternative at the time) but more
fashionable and didn't involve finding an artist.

Which proves what? A daguerreotype is a far more "accurate" rendition
than a sketch.

In some ways, yes, but you've already noted that it only uses part of
the available light spectrum and the grey scale is off. However, you
seem to have already convinced yourself that your theory that
photographs are always accurate and faithful renditions of reality, so
there's nothing more I can say on the subject.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
recording."

Do you know what that means? It //does not// mean that "the B/W
photo (powerful and compelling as it may well be) has a high degree
of 'fidelity' to what you see".

If you don't understand what words mean, what is the point of
discussing anything?

Yet you keep on, pretending that you're always right. That's a really
stupid pretense, especially when you're wrong. Stupid, but predictably
entertaining.

[Neil Gould]

geoff wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:26 p.m., Neil wrote:
On 9/30/2014 4:52 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
recording.

I *really* disagree with this opinion.
Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)

There have always been lenses of different focal lengths (though
not as a wide a range as we've had since the middle of the 20th
century). In what sense does the presumed "compromise" of not
having lenses that go from 13mm to 2000mm have a parallel in sound
recording?

The point is that *every* lens has compromises by design, whether in
DOF, color rendition, perspective distortion, resolution, etc., it's
an unavoidable aspect of lens design. Two lenses of different design
will not render a scene in the same manner, just as two microphones
of different design will not respond to an acoustic environment in
the same manner. Furthermore, every step in either process after
those components also impacts the "fidelity" of the final product,
therefore, "fidelity" becomes largely a matter of what is important
to the producer, since that is all the consumer has direct access to.


I've never heard a lens being described as having a particular
'character' in the way almost all mics do ! (focal-length and gross
technical flaws excepted).

Well, they are described that way. Different lenses of the same focal length
from the same manufacturer vary w/r/t such things as sharpness, contrast,
etc., and these variations are pretty wide when compared between
manufacturers. It won't take you long to find such descriptions by reading
some lens reviews.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's "realistic".

However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
painting.

The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?

I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about
representation.

So was I, but that you see such a clear differentiation between the two may
be at the root of our disagreement. In the examples I gave, "a good
representation of the subject" is a matter of which characteristics one
chooses to compare and which to ignore. I really shouldn't have to go into
detail to get that point across.

--
best regards,

Neil

[John Williamson]

On 01/10/2014 14:41, Jeff Henig wrote:
John Williamson wrote:


Oh, thank you. I suppose, then, a Kodachrome is not a photograph.

Not in common parlance round here, no. It's a slide. Even when it's not
mounted as one. Then again, people still talk about watching a film, even
when it's been digitally produced and projected.


Yea verily; we still talk about what's on tape, even when recording to hard
drive.


Or, in my case, flash memory, which doesn't even use magnetism.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's "realistic".

However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
painting.

The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about
representation.

So was I, but that you see such a clear differentiation between the two may
be at the root of our disagreement. In the examples I gave, "a good
representation of the subject" is a matter of which characteristics one
chooses to compare and which to ignore. I really shouldn't have to go into
detail to get that point across.

I get your point exactly. But for the last century, photographs have been
more-accurate representations of their subjects than sound recordings. This
began to change only in the '50s.