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?
We mingle in different circles, the digital prefix hasn’t been in my vernacular for a very long time now. In fact, I’d say it’s more common to specify “film photography” these days, since it’s the minority. (*No* disrespect intended to those who shoot film!)
For the most part, photography is photography is photography.
Amen, Chase!
Btw. When the 35mm film has been discovered, did people say 35mm photography?
As a member of what I would call the “last class” of photographers taught in a darkroom as opposed to and editing suite, I would have to whole-heartedly agree that for those of us who understand the fundamentals and foundations of photography, the digital side of the business is just the natural progression of the science that is “light-imaging.”
Regardless of whether you’re shooting with a CCD/CMOS Sensor or Light-Sensitive Silver Molecules adheared to Plastic Strips, you should be choosing the right tool for the job. Its all the same in the end: a result of knowledge and work.
While we are at let’s stop calling it analog. It’s not analog, it is called film!
I am with SCOTT ANDREW.
I shoot medium format film as well as 35mm ff digi. And semantics aside, you must acknowledge process of production for each media is unique from the other.
I have no desire or need to eliminate film.