Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Similarities to photography
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Similarities to photography

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 

I had trouble sleeping last night because A.) I drink way too much coffee at night B.) I was up thinking about how similar the photography is to audio... ography?

 

I'm fairly new to the whole audio thing, but have been doing photography for over 5 years now, so forgive me if I get some of these audio terms wrong. One other caveat, I know nothing about sound recording so I'm just making assumptions here, feel free to correct.

 

microphone = camera

print/monitor = headphones/IEMs/speakers

dynamic range = frequency range

shadows = bass

highlights = treble

 

Capture/Recording

Recording sound is just like capturing an image. We often want to capture as much detail as possible with little to no coloration, this gives us the most to work with when we process the image/sound. But then, various cameras can have their own "look". The most striking example might be the look of a Sigma Fovean sensor SLR vs. any other SLR sensor. Some cameras are more contrasty than others, some will be warmer or cooler than others even when set to the same Kelvin rating.

 

Viewing/Listening

There are many ways to view an image: monitor, print, projected image. Each of those can be broken down further: LCD, plasma, OLED. Printing on different paper can produce very different images as well. And just like different IEMs match different styles of music, matte paper might generally work well with portraits while I really enjoy the look of landscapes on metallic paper.

 

Dynamic Range

Dynamic range is just like the range that microphones can capture/headphones can produce. Certain cameras/microphones will be able to capture more highlight/treble detail or shadow/bass detail. Certain monitors/printers/headphones/speakers can show more highlight/treble detail or shadow/bass detail than others. Some show images darker/bassier than others, etc.

 

Technology vs. Art

One thing a lot of people forget in photography is that, as awesome as all the technology is, at the end of the day it's about the art/music.

 

I'm sure a lot of this is pretty obvious, just wanted to share it. Anyone else think about this? What other analogies do you see?

post #2 of 6

nice thread.

 

re:  technology, i suppose film = vinyl, and digital cameras = mp3.

post #3 of 6
Thread Starter 

That's right. All the compression technology debates...

 

All the JPEG vs. TIFF vs. DNG vs RAW debates.. MP3 vs. WMA vs. AAC vs. FLAC

post #4 of 6

You are right!
They definitely have a lot of similarities.

post #5 of 6

I think they are both also about reproducing time. Still photographs visually imply the rhythm of a moment. A cloud hangs leisurely over a meadow for as long as we choose to gaze at it; or an athlete captured midair implies -- in fleeting minutiae -- the pain of the challenge. Music is also about time. The eternity of single, struck chime or the adrenaline paced-race of an electronic drum -- music is a record of a progression. Like the landscape photo or the image of the grimmaced athelete --  music stirs us by implying the passage of a soothing or frenetic moment.

post #6 of 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWuss View Post

nice thread.

 

re:  technology, i suppose film = vinyl, and digital cameras = mp3.


Well I'd split digital cameras into

 

Full frame DSLR = SACD

Regular DSLR = Compact disc and FLAC

Point n Shoot = mp3

 

Better?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Similarities to photography