Digitally Analogous
A cultural shift backward toward what I’ll call analogue has emerged
Long, long ago — in eighth grade, to be exact — I was in a photography class taught by my long-suffering algebra teacher. We had quality cameras and a dark room, neither of which I had at home, and I learned the basics of the craft. It’s been part of my life ever since, but in many ways the best aspect has been leaving behind color and black and white films for digital cameras and darkrooms (Photoshop et al). Setting aside nostalgia, it has never been easier and more fun to be into photography. Even the cameras in smartphones have improved markedly.
Among the digital tools is software that allows one to replicate the look and feel of all the films left behind. Film stock from Tri-X to Kodachrome to dozens of others can be replicated with photos taken today, offering a vast range of creative, artistic possibilities. And also something else: a connection with photography’s creative past that a decreasing number of people have experienced as film cameras were replaced with digital ones. Not only does one have access to a large selection of films, but also the ability to tweak and alter them in ways that simply weren’t possible in real darkrooms.
One of the great aspects of this is the reemergence of black and white photography. Converting color digital files to monochromatic ones is much more than simply going old school; there are aspects within photographs that go unseen when color is in the way. Not all color photos work well as black and white images; those that do really become works of art.
But there’s a larger theme here. A cultural shift backward toward what I’ll call analogue has emerged. The rise of vinyl in the age of compact discs and digital music files is one of these. The old is mixed with the new in ways that have created enthusiasm for non-digital by those who missed all of the early technologies.
There’s a belief among some that music that isn’t digital is warmer and more natural. From studios that avoid digital recording and processing to individuals who own costly tube amplifiers and expensive turntables, there’s a dedicated fandom for that which is now considered obsolete by many. Mind you, most albums released on vinyl now were recorded in digital. (The limitations of vinyl do prevent some of the worst aspects of modern music production — excessive compression in particular.) Digital mixing software includes plugins meant to process music and create the sound of analogue recordings and mixing, but there’s skepticism regarding the authenticity of this.
It’s not much different from those who find that digital filmmaking (note the irony in this term) lacks the qualities film brings to cinematography — precisely why software that emulates photographic film exists for digital darkrooms and video processing. Some film directors even release 70 mm film versions for dedicated film connoisseurs. The vast majority of people seeing movies in theaters don’t care, of course, finding the quality of digital presentations to be excellent. Which brings us to the pragmatic aspects of all of this.
From nostalgia to retro to old school — both for those who experienced the original or are experiencing it here and now, it’s an aesthetic perspective. The arts are really not about being confined but about finding many forms of expression, and technology is very much a part of this. It comes back to a basic premise I have noted all along: everything is relative. Watching old black and white films or new ones is a different experience in the same way that black and white photographs are. We see them differently because they present different qualities. This is also true but to a much reduced degree with music because it requires fairly critical listening beyond the music and lyrics to detect any meaningful differences.
Part of the animosity toward digital is that be it photo, film or music, it took a while for both the technology and it’s use to overcome the initial shortcomings. The earliest compact discs (particularly classical music) sometimes lacked the qualities of analogue recordings, and refinement of digital photo and video cameras and processing software required time as well. Plus, I detect a human nature tendency for some to make earlier technology the standard of comparison because that’s what they grew up with and know. But it’s rarely, if ever, an either-or choice for most of us.
More often than not, nothing short of A-B comparisons (switching back and forth) can actually demonstrate what are really subtle differences…if any. Human memory is notoriously unreliable when it comes to this sort of thing. Emotional appreciation of the arts is not dictated by these trivialities anyway, except perhaps for purists, who cannot let go of their intense focus on aspects that everyone considers peripheral to the essence of human expression through sound and vision. Unlike pragmatists, purists are often elitists doomed to dissatisfaction. To me, it’s never been better when it comes to the aesthetic qualities offered in a digital world.
