|
J MICHAEL SULLIVAN Photography
| ||
Is "Digital" Photography?
We've been here before people. It was only a short while ago that the same thing was being said of digital music -- that somehow it was not "real" not "pure" -- and endless arguments and discussions ensued proving it so. Remember AAD? and ADD? Yes, yes. We all agree that tube amps sound sweeter. So what? The world went digital and the millionaires (and obsessed music nuts) outfit their home with tube amps. Good for them. The rest of us are quite happy with our iTunes. Thank you Steve Jobs. Further, here we are 20 years later and no one in their right mind would suggest that today's music artists (100% digital by my count) were somehow no longer producing art. The world has accepted digital music as the defacto standard art form. Who does analogue recording anymore? Practically nobody (in fact, maybe nobody except the Russians). End of discussion. The same thing happended with typesetting. A similar bunch of digital luddites (also with their own set of vested interests) predicted the print world would suffer due to onslaught of digital typesetting. The last time I looked, the world seemed to me pretty good in regards to typesetting. In fact, things look very well indeed. Adobe InDesign is by any reckoning the leader in high-end typesetting today with the best algorithms for automatically setting type the world has ever seen. And you get this for free if you own the product. Ain't life great? Thank you Adobe. So you see history repeats itself. Those of the old school always hate the new school. They are fearsome dinosaurs with biting criticisms of the new kid on the block. But rest assured, great photographers will not complain. Instead, they will embrace and fuse newer technologies into their art and get on with it. After all, some of the most exciting photography today is a combination of digital and analog. As far as I'm concerned, this is a marriage made in heaven. SITES THAT PERIODICALLY TRASH DIGITAL SITES THAT PERIODICALLY OVER-PROMOTE DIGITAL QUALITY © 2006 J Michael Sullivan, all rights reserved. |
|
|
here is quite a bit of discussion on the Internet claiming that digital photography is not "real" photography.
Most of this is coming from digital Luddites, who have vested interests in maintaining the exclusive use of "pure" photography for themselves,
suggesting emphatically that somehow digital is not the real thing. Many technical "proofs" of the superiority of analog vs. digital are offered citing Nyquist,
and infinite resolution of film, etc. The problem is, all these discussions are theoretical.
Since when does there exist a lens that can provide infinite resolution? When push comes to shove, only experts can "see" any difference (even that is questionable) -- and that only with an 8x magnfying loupe.
Ask any ordinary person to differentiate between an analog picture and a digital one and most can't even begin to guess which is which.
The fact is, a photograph can be either digital or analog or even a combination. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.