Colleagues,
I am taking a digital photography class. We had to read a paper that I consider to be practically eons old. Included in the article was the statement that digital photography is "not there yet."
I disagree.
I want to rebut that statement. But what do you all think?.......
It is my opinion that it is both and. Digital photography is obviously here and it is not going away any time soon. It's viability, OTOH, depends upon its application and the image required.
In many, or even most photographic applications today digital is the obvious choice. Journalism, commercial, fashion, sports, perhaps even architectural photography have all benefited greatly from digital and those who work in these areas are wise to pursue it to the extent their creative requirements suggest.
Consumer (I deplore that term) photography has its feet firmly in both worlds. Even though millions of digital cameras were purchased, there were over 120 million rolls of film sold in 2003 according to the reports I've seen from Kodak. I do not know if that is all roll film inclusive of all producers or if it is just Kodak. If it is just Kodak then add to that the number of rolls sold by Fuji, Polaroid, Agfa, etc. Nor do I know if it is only roll film (i.e., not sheet film), only consumer roll film, just in the USA, or what. All I know is that at least 120 million rolls of film were sold last year.
But for the average person interested only in collecting images of memories, there is no real advantage of one over the other. The instantaneous nature of digital may actually prove to be its down fall as people realize they inadvertently deleted what they thought was a poor, bad, or just unflattering memento but was in fact the only example they will ever have. Once people discover and value this, film cameras may find a permanent place in their other pocket.
The Fine Art world is not so clearly cut. On the one hand there are people like Paul Capanigro (sp?), Jerry Uselmann, Dan Burkholder, and others who find digital the logical next step in their creative expression. Most people, however, cannot afford the caliber of capture devices they employ (with the exception of Dan who uses mid range Nikons).
The majority of fine art photographers remain firmly committed to film and the darkroom. The reason is, in this area at least, digital is not there yet. It may be just around the corner but it has not yet arrived. Film still has a much higher resolving power than digital and there is not yet digital printing paper that can match the esthetic value and presentation of a finely crafted, expressive black and white print on fiber based paper.
That being said, Oriental of Japan does offer a fiber based digital printing paper. The question remains with its actual performance. But it still may be comparing apples to oranges. Digital prints may be better compared to offset printing than to traditional archival printing methods as digital prints will be identical to the extent they are printed on the same batch of paper from the same printer with the same cartridge of ink, dyes or pigments. Every traditionally produced photograph remains unique even if the printer is John Sexton or Ruth Bernhardt.
I don't own a digital camera. I do not yet believe I need one, though that could change. And I will continue to buy and use Kodak 100TMX and print on Polymax FB glossy (at least) so long as they are available. I will also continue to teach others the art of the expressive black and white print so long as they are interested.
Peace! Sidney
