Part of the reason why older porn is better: Analog - Page 2

**Sirch** · October 6th, 2011, 04:03 PM

I think there is some truth in the fact, older stock was less clear, sometimes darker and fuzzier. It was more of a mystery for the brain. All good points.

But as noted before its not just the technology. Old shoots were creative, they used interesting locations or assembled sets that evoke an erotic mood.

Today's photo shoots are shot "anywhere" and all the photo is saying is, "Look at me. I am naked!"

While I hate the excesses with Photoshop retouching, having the digital medium show me every pore on the girls face isn't so attractive either.

**blondifan** · October 6th, 2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Historian

Kind of like the argument I've heard a lot of people make about music on vinyl v CD? That although the sound quality on CD was technically better, there was a certain intangible 'something' missing compared to the original vinyl.

Possibly part of the reason why the Foo Fighters latest (with Butch Vig producing) is being recorded Analogue , to tape. One drawback (although maybe not so much for them) is that their 'chops' have to be tight, as there is no replacing a 'bum note' as with Pro Tools.

Quote:

Certainly looking at modern digital images, against older 'analog' stuff, I can see what you're getting at- not least because of the extent to which some modern photography is Photoshopped to within an inch of it's life to remove every last tiny imperfection in the subject...

On the other hand there is now a plethora of much bigger images, in much greater detail. Let's not forget Airbrushing existed long ago. Even so, in my neverending pursuit of higher resolution images, I'd love to have seen higher resolution images of some eighties 'Stars'.

It's the singer, not the song.

**lothian** · October 8th, 2011, 05:33 PM

For me the best thing about older stuff is less Tattoos. piercings and silicon.

milffan1 · October 20th, 2011, 08:24 AM

I don't know if digitally shot and recorded stuff really is 'more accurate' like people say though. To me a lot of digitally shot stuff looks worse. For example there's this intense brightness that's unrealistic. In one movie when they sun came out it made the whole screen turn white, that's not what it actually looks like when the sun comes out. It's weird though because when analog stuff is transferred to digital it comes out really good. Like the combination of low-fi (analog) and high-fi (digital) is a great balance. So the initial recording to tape or film serves as like a filter for the final digital product and tones down the high-endness or brightness or whatever it is. It would probably be possible to make settings for digital cameras and audio recording programs to mimic this effect. I know they've been trying this with audio recording but it still doesn't come out as good as when actual analog is used in the recording process.

milffan1 · October 20th, 2011, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blondifan

Possibly part of the reason why the Foo Fighters latest (with Butch Vig producing) is being recorded Analogue , to tape. One drawback (although maybe not so much for them) is that their 'chops' have to be tight, as there is no replacing a 'bum note' as with Pro Tools.

Actually some people developed a recording system called the CLASP that allows artists to record to a reel to reel tape machine into the computer simultaneously. It's pretty interesting and a lot of big artists are using it like Aerosmith and KISS: http://www.youtube.com/user/endlessanalog

heretic(666) · October 20th, 2011, 05:34 PM

Leave us not forget digital remastering; these two words actually mean 2suck the guts out of it so that it can be played in the car wih megabass and sub-woofers for people who have no concept of a natural sound.
Digitally remasteredby callow yoofs who were born after most of the music they are shredding was recorded
I listen on valve (vacuum tube) equipment and it brings out all the depth and richness of sound to an extent that still surprises me occasionally. Some digitally remastered stuff makes my equipment sound like bean tins
Digital remastering? Quality in---Garbage out

October 6th, 2011, 04:03 PM	#11
Sirch Vintage Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,216 Thanks: 18,391 Thanked 12,704 Times in 1,147 Posts	I think there is some truth in the fact, older stock was less clear, sometimes darker and fuzzier. It was more of a mystery for the brain. All good points. But as noted before its not just the technology. Old shoots were creative, they used interesting locations or assembled sets that evoke an erotic mood. Today's photo shoots are shot "anywhere" and all the photo is saying is, "Look at me. I am naked!" While I hate the excesses with Photoshop retouching, having the digital medium show me every pore on the girls face isn't so attractive either.

October 8th, 2011, 05:33 PM	#13
lothian Vintage Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Edinburgh Scotland Posts: 706 Thanks: 7,330 Thanked 9,841 Times in 704 Posts	For me the best thing about older stuff is less Tattoos. piercings and silicon.

October 20th, 2011, 08:24 AM	#14
milffan1 Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 33 Thanks: 311 Thanked 168 Times in 31 Posts	I don't know if digitally shot and recorded stuff really is 'more accurate' like people say though. To me a lot of digitally shot stuff looks worse. For example there's this intense brightness that's unrealistic. In one movie when they sun came out it made the whole screen turn white, that's not what it actually looks like when the sun comes out. It's weird though because when analog stuff is transferred to digital it comes out really good. Like the combination of low-fi (analog) and high-fi (digital) is a great balance. So the initial recording to tape or film serves as like a filter for the final digital product and tones down the high-endness or brightness or whatever it is. It would probably be possible to make settings for digital cameras and audio recording programs to mimic this effect. I know they've been trying this with audio recording but it still doesn't come out as good as when actual analog is used in the recording process.

October 20th, 2011, 05:34 PM	#16
heretic(666) Blocked! Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,033 Thanks: 6,523 Thanked 4,461 Times in 918 Posts	Leave us not forget digital remastering; these two words actually mean 2suck the guts out of it so that it can be played in the car wih megabass and sub-woofers for people who have no concept of a natural sound. Digitally remasteredby callow yoofs who were born after most of the music they are shredding was recorded I listen on valve (vacuum tube) equipment and it brings out all the depth and richness of sound to an extent that still surprises me occasionally. Some digitally remastered stuff makes my equipment sound like bean tins Digital remastering? Quality in---Garbage out