> 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? Is digital there > yet? Any comments would be appreciated, and may wind up as a quote in my > rebuttal paper. The photojournalist who has access to first world technology and power will find the digital medium a boon, as will amateurs and those who have the need to transmit visual images over vast distances in the shortest possible time. For those who manipulate or create images, either montaging or starting from scratch, digital again stands head and shoulders over conventional film based photography. The resolution is there, the image manipulation software is there, the computer speeds are there and to this end digital photography is there.. with the qualifier 'for these people'. For the photojournalist confronted with no power, a hostile environment or long periods away from a support network the digital media may prove inadequate and film based technology may have distinct advantages. For those who have no need of dramatic image modifications and who rely on the expertise of a conventional printer to render their negatives into a viewable print format while they spend their time as a photographer making images, digital offers no benefit. For the amateur confused by emerging and constantly changing standards and technologies, digital holds little appeal and a great deal of confusion. Just as the question was posed years ago in the film-only era as to which format was the 'best', there is no straightforward answer to the film or digital question,as it depends entirely on the requirements of the image maker. I'll return to this, and the question of format later. Cost is a concern, where once pro photographers took a great deal of convincing before they would invest in a professional camera, often a 'system camera' (many opted for a number of semi-pro cameras instead) in the digital world photographers seem to have no reservations when it comes to investing many many thousands of dollars in cameras they know will be redundant in the near future, nor do they shy away from spending large sums in purchasing and upgrading regularly, the computers, software and printers required to take full advantage of digital imaging. Storage media, storage devices, archiving devices, image management software - all are costs which the enthusiastic digital photographer seem willing to bear. This is in stark contrast to the earlier time when film was the only medium on offer, and when photographers who often yearned for the quality of medium and large formats felt deterred by the price. As an aside, few digital photographers will pass down cameras as working heirlooms - a practice which still occurs among film photographers. There is the matter of image preservation to consider, conventional film has long been known to offer considerable life, and recent revelations breaking down some of the photographic myths have shown great longevity does not always require exceptional effort in processing technologies. Digital may serve a photographer whose images are 'disposable' (and such photographic needs exist) but expectations over the preservation of digitally stored images, or indeed any digitally stored material, are often unrealistic and to date no guaranteed long-life storage exists. In the NIST Special Publication 500-252 "Information Technology: Care and Handling of CD's and DVD's - A Guide for Librarians and Archivists", by Fred R. Byers from the link we find a comment on the preservation of digital media: "If the software currently used to interpret the data .. becomes unavailable, a migration or emulation technology will be needed to access the data. Also if the current .. technology becomes unavailable, the information will become inaccessible. Film and paper are much more stable (than CD's magnetic tape and DVD's) in this regard, as the human language does not change as rapidly as computer software, or the media format. "Ink on paper" for example, has been used for centuries, and film has not changed significantly over the years. The Importance of ensuring that information can be read by future generations cannot be overstated. .. The computer user "industry standard" for data storage on removable digital media has changed considerably over the past few decades.. digital media used as recently as 20 years ago are already incompatible with most of today's systems." Such statements suggest digital image *storage* may have some way to go before photographers can be content that their digitally created images will survive the passage of time. The 'truthfulness' of images created digitally has been brought into question as an argument against digital - this I believe is a futile argument, as film image manipulation has been with us since the beginning, but it does lead to the matter of how many generations removed a digital image may be from the original. Where once film users who exposed transparency film held that their film images were 'first generation' and as such had advantages over 'second generation' negative film users, digital may be many times removed from the original. Scanning images may introduce scanner profiles and image 'tweaks' at the scanning stage, additional adjustment post scanning, additional profiles modifying the image based on monitor calibration and finally a host of print profile adjustments before the printer it's self readjusts the image for the final print. For those who rely on their images being viewed on computers, no control is offered as to how the image will be viewed on the other side of the world. Will the monitor be corrected, will these images be viewed as the photographer intended? Film photographers who print images may have substantially more control over the way their work is viewed. It is true that digital images offer a repeatability that film and paper users can only yearn after, and analogue reproduction offers an introduction of variables at every stage, but output of the digital image can also offer variables in reproduction. The issue of colour fidelity is also an intriguing one with digital sensory in camera being fixed. The film photographer has a choice of a wide selection of film stocks offering known and testable colour variations, the digital photographer can only rely on software to change the image characteristics. The nuances of such software is often beyond the understanding of many, with the functions being simply a mystery that the digital photographer must simply trust in conjunction with their memory to be providing accurate output. Returning to the matter of format. Photographers who studied the subject may recall an example photograph of a dice where a single frame was exposed on 35mm format showing only the upper surface of the dice. Another photograph was produced to compare and contrast this, an image made by a 4x5 camera showing not only the upper surface, but also all 4 sides of the dice. Larger formats add a 'dimensionality' that while almost imperceptible, almost intangible, it is still there nonetheless. Larger formats offer a 'depth' to a portrait, a 'spatial feel' to a landscape which 35mm, 110 and smaller formats cannot, they remain 'flat'. Resolution has often been the only standard by which the digital camera manufacturers choose to be judged, and clearly they win on this count with some of the newer cameras, but on some of the less obvious elements they offer nothing. Macro photographs with massive depth of field bring distracting elements - a 'busyness' to images where the key subject would be better shown isolated. Larger formats can erase this problem. However in contrast, for those photographers seeking to maximise their depth of field, digital cameras with small sensors and high resolving power can be a distinct advantage. Until reasonably priced portable larger format cameras are available, digital photography remains for many applications in it's infancy . Before camera manufacturers invest in more robust, more durable designs, less complicated controls, more surety in the longevity of the storage, lower power consumptions - digital photography still has room to advance. For some it is already at a point where it is more than they could desire - it is 'there', but not for everyone, not yet. k
