[Leica] Analog[ue] v. Digital

[buzz.hausner at verizon.net (buzz.hausner@verizon.net)]

Humble, B.D.?  HUMBLE!?!? <<INSERT SMILEY HERE>>  Anyway, the words 
"analog[ue]" and "digital" are still being used wrong and dtand to be 
corrected.

Buzz
> 
> From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
> Date: 2004/07/14 Wed AM 10:47:06 EDT
> To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Analog v. Digital
> 
> Ah, here we go, wandering off down the Yellow LUGroad. 
> 
> Digital smidgital - I would submit that what we're really talking about
> is electronic image capture v. film image capture: using the first
> process the image - light - passes through the lens, strikes an
> electronic sensor, and is converted to electrical impulses and stored
> electronically; using the second, the image, light, passes through the
> lens and strikes and exposes a piece of film, creating what will become
> a negative of the image - or a positive in the case of a slide, and is
> "stored" on the film itself.
> 
> And "digital" printing is, of course, either inkjet printing, dye
> sublimation, or some other specific form of printing that converts the
> electronic impulses captured by the camera to colors on paper.
> 
> But someone, at some point, decided that "electronic" was pass? and
> oh-so-50s, and that "digital" was a more marketable term, and, besides,
> it was one people could come to understand in terms of watches and
> clocks - digital is modern and up-to-date, analogue is old-fashioned and
> stodgy.
> 
> JustMHO.... :-)
> 
> B. D.