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?
Tough call – I think what I’m about to say is backwards from what you are saying, but here goes:
when I go to a concert and am trying to describe it afterward to someone, I feel like I really have to emphasize when a performer used an acoustic guitar as opposed to electric – because it’s kind of special, brings a different vibe to the show, and deserves to be recognized.
The same goes for film/digital. It seems that when people are looking at a collection of my photos, they always ask “was this shot on film?” or “do you still use film?”
I suppose it shouldn’t matter, but these days, I’m a little proud to let someone know I shot something on film. I think we’re still at a point where it’s known that making an image on film requires a slightly different set of skills and knowledge of camera functions, etc. than making a digital image.
That’s a topic that could be discussed forever, I suppose.
I never tell someone I’m a digital photographer, I’ll just say “photographer”. But when something is done using a non-traditional medium or at least one that is not in line with current trends, such as film photography or oil painting, or playing an acoustic guitar, or pressing a vinyl record as opposed to a digital EP, I think it should be recognized as something that took a little more effort and craft. Or is that just a pride thing – where people like to be recognized for their efforts?
Sorry, that’s kind of a rambling response…
It makes sense – and I agree. I don’t feel that digital has been able to fully match analog for photography yet. Silver gelatine and chromogenic prints still look better than pigment prints. Film still retains more information than digital – in terms of highlights and shadows.
Totally agree! its the acknowledgement of the medium
Couldn’t agree more.
Photography is photography, just like music is music. But within music, you have rock-music, within rock-music you have; alternative, punk, new-wave, gothic, metal, indie etc etc.
I feel that the distinction is sometimes needed, just like if you want to communicate what type of photography you’re into. In my opinion there are differences between the various photography mediums, and a little distinction is sometimes welcome to communicate what type of person you are.
I will if you will. It’s even in the title of one of your related posts. 🙂
I am going to remove digital off of my business cards. once I start making them!
Thanks Chase!!
“Chase Jarivis inspires me to take pictures.”
Completely agree.
I agree with this.
The term ‘digital photography’, while accurate, seems to be more of a slur these days than a term of respect on par with film. As if the use of digital were somehow inherently inferior to the use of film.
They are both just tools. The art comes from the artist behind the lens.
I’m with you on this one. I’ve got a coworker who thinks a photographer has to suffer and use film. I think art can be made out of crayons.