Comments on: Should We Drop “Digital” from Digital Photography? by Fred Bonilla

By: done

done — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:34:00 +0000

Gгeat poѕt however I waѕ wоndering іf you соuld wrіte
a littе moгe on this subjеct?
Ι’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Thank you!

By: Matt Needham

Matt Needham — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:04:03 +0000

“Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important.” -HCB

Only photo geeks look to the camera and process to evaluate photographs hanging on the wall. The rest of the world just uses their eyeballs.

By: Allen E. Shifrin

Allen E. Shifrin — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 03:17:48 +0000

I think that it’s a good time to drop both “digital” and “analog” from the conversation except in those cases when a distinction may be necessary. One does not need to use the terms when discussing photographs, unless the actual process is part of the information important to the picture. A Sabbatier print, for example, is as much a statement of the darkroom process as it is of the subject matter; an editorial print of the Brooklyn Bridge could come from either source and no one could care less.
Knowledgeable people know that a Nikon F2 is “film” or “analog” and a Nikon D300 is digitial. There is no need to specify beyond the name of the camera (was the use of the “F” a matter of prescience by Nikon?).
It may also be easier to simply shift the designation to the lesser used (film) process. Why not assume that the camera or process is digital unless specifically referred to as analog. In that case the DSLR will revert to being an SLR and a film reflex would be known as an FSLR. That would save a lot of ink in the long run and has precedent in the computer world; ATA (IDE) hard drives were always assumed to be parallel devices until the serial devices came along. When they were new, they were referred to as “SATA” vs “ATA”. Then, the milieu became populated by SATA and PATA drives and of late, one frequently refers to ATA and PATA drives, as the serial variety has become the norm.

By: Greg Silsby

Greg Silsby — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:29:47 +0000

Given the fact that most photography today is digital, it would seem logical that the descriptor be used only when needed to note the exception, i.e., “film photography,” or “analog photography.”

By: Ashlee

Ashlee — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:39:03 +0000

All I can say is, I hope film is not dead.