I heard it again yesterday for the billionth time: “Digital Photography”. Isn’t it time we drop the word ‘digital’?
Seems we’ve managed to drop the “electric” from “electric guitar” in common parlance.
We found it easy to drop the word “acrylic” from “acrylic painting” when that came on the scene with oils.
We quickly ditched the “digital” from “digital music” when it took the lead over records and tapes and CDs.
I suppose by-and-large our industry has dropped the word, but given that digital and analog photography are fundamentally the same thing, isn’t it time we implore the rest of the world to assimilate the term “digital photography” back into “photography” as a whole?
Does this mean I can drop the “damn” from Canon when talking about the focus on my Mrk III? I guess it does work since it’s a given talking about the III.
For those who want to defend the III, don’t bother…. we have plenty of IV’s that justify our feelings over the III.
you are damn right
I agree. Photography is photography. But a guitar isn’t just a guitar. You use an acoustic guitar for different things than an electric one. So at times you do use the ‘electric’ or ‘acoustic’ part in a phrase. But only when it matters. The same thing applies to photography in my opinion. Often it wouldn’t matter and we should all just say photography. But sometimes it’s very important. They are still different tools and have different constraints and will, to a certain degree, give different results.
It makes perfect sense to me too.
That one has been bugging me for a while too.