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?
Simple post which has profound meanings. Just need to change mentality 😉
I’m still amazed every time someone asks me if I’m shooting digitally. I want to answer “Of course I am”, but I try to be nice. And even if I’m not shooting digitally, just about every photo will end up as pixels or on paper anyway, so the original source really isn’t as critical as it used to be.
Well, I think the digital set has used this as a sales term for so long it will be difficult to drop. I’ve never quite understood this but many of the proponents of digital have been simultaneously trying to further the digital world(makes sense) while condemning anything having to do with analog photography. I worked for Eastman Kodak when the first real digi cams landed, think DCS 520. Almost immediately the war cries began about “Death to Analog,” all the while the first actions were being built, in camera actions, which were designed to…wait for it….mimic film. What?
I see this trend continuing today, still don’t understand it, but there are many things about photography I still don’t get. Not a week ago I read an article about a new cinema camera that was “finally going to kill film.”
I hate to say it but I think the geeks will hold to the “Digital Photography” moniker for a while yet.
Yesterday while picking up a few prints I heard a camera center employee as he worked with a customer. “Why is that camera only $125, what is wrong with it?” the customer asked. “What’s wrong with it?” the counter guy asked.”It’s a film camera.”
Until this mentality goes away…not sure “Digital Photography” is going away.
I agree, but… it may be too soon. I’ve run into a lot of folks (mostly older) who used to shoot film and then stopped for years. Now they’re picking up new digital gear, but they’re not tech-savvy, so it’s like a whole new ballgame. Specifying that something is digital is probably still useful for people like that, even if the term is on its way out for the rest of us. I think that’s something we’re seeing in all sectors and industries – digital was used as a marketing buzzword, but now it’s dated and will become even more dated as analog technology completely disappears from the consumer market.
Chase, much respect to you buddy but I beg to differ with you on this. I’m a hybrid photographer who prefers to photograph with the medium of film. You can argue dynamics, capture, resolution, aesthetic until we’re blue in the face but suffice it to be said, traditional analog photography and digital photography are two different creatures.
I, for one, don’t want to see a battle of semantics over how we deem our mode of photography but I think there is good reason to still use the term “digital photography” when referring to images captured digitally. In its purest sense a digital image is exactly that, a digital image. A photograph is something that is tangible, light exposed on emulsion, transferred to a print (either via scan or optical printmaking). If anything, for the sake of purity in photography, let’s keep the distinction between digital imaging and analog photography. There is a difference.
Agree 100%. I could not sum it up any better than you. If I had my way, that’s how we’d refer to the two camps.
The problem is if you’re a maker of digital images (with a digital camera) and formally refer to yourself as a digital imager, you’ll sound like a dweeb. “Chase Jarvis: Digital Imager” just does not have the same credibility. (I know Chase shoots film sometimes as well, but I’m just making a point). Therefore for the sake of convenience and common understanding, they’re digital photographers to some, and just photographers to others.
Besides the technical aspects, I think there’s another reason to justify between the two terms. Film shooting is fundamentally a different process than digital when it comes to the WAY the same person would shoot with a digital camera vs film. Nobody can deny that. The mental process (consciously and subconsciously), changes based on format. I don’t know of any person who owns a digital and film camera and shoots them in the EXACT manner. They’re different animals, and some form of distinction is fine with me.
Viva photography…and digital imaging.
“Viva photography…and digital imaging.”
Wow.. as if digital photography doesn’t exist…
“I’m a hybrid photographer ”
No, you are a photographer.