If digital photography could exterminate film photography, why are printed books not extinct?
The Amazon kindle is the best e-book reader on the market. With 8 weeks battery life, connection to Amazon Prime, and a capacity to hold over 100,000 books, you will be excited. Get it now!
Because holding a book, reading and looking at illustrations is such a tactile as well as emotional experience. One doesn't get the same experience from holding a technical device. Good question.
Maybe it's just me, but e-books and e-readers just scream slush pile. I can read a lot on the internet but the majority of it is all crap. In other words, there is no filter.
People can troll all over the place, and people who are serious can get away without editors. Print media still represents that wall between stuff you should read and stuff that isn't worth your time. That's not to say that crap doesn't get published (because we all know it does) but at this time, I would say that the amount of crap on the internet far outweighs the amount of crap in print.
For that reason, e-readers aren't separate enough from the internet for me to justify reading books off of it. Right now the only thing that appeals to me about an e-reader is that you can download public domain books for free and take them with you.
I enjoy being able to sit in a bath tub and read a good book - won't be doing that with a digital device.
Because people have a difficult time reading screens on their phones and tablets already why make them strain their eyes more.
Similar to books, the use of film photgraphy may significantly decrease but will probably not go extinct... at least not in this lifetime. Photography enthusiasts and old-school photographers would still make use of or prefer film over digital photgraphy. Online news and portable tablets such as Kindle were unable to eradicate newspapers and books.
Use of hardcopy content may have suffered but they are still around. I expect something similar to occur with photography.
Maybe because you can't smell photos but books. I think you'll get the point if you have ever held a brand new book straight out of the bookshop and felt the grace and the linger of the paper and the ink. You just can't beat that with ebooks and audiobooks.
Great article from a wedding photographer's perspective Digital vs. Film - A Wedding Photographer’s Thoughts Recently there is no topic that creates as much impassioned conversation when it is discussed among photographers. In the current Wedding Bells magazine, there is an article that describes the total digital transformation of three photographers including Monte Zucker (the famous portraitist), Jeff Hawkins (a Florida photographer) and Denis Reggie (who many would consider the father of documentary wedding photography). There are impassioned supporters of both film and digital.
As a photographer who has used film for over twenty years and digital for the last six years, I would have to say that, at the time of this writing, it¹s just about a dead heat. At least fairly recently (the last two years and especially this past year), film did surpass the quality of digital capture, in my opinion. Film does still handle certain situations better than digital, but for all practical purposes, they will both produce professional esults IN THE HANDS OF A PROFESSIONAL.
Some of these professionals are 100% digital (i.e. David Beckstead or Denis Reggie) while others still prefer film only or a combination of the two. (I still like to shoot a little 3200 Kodak Tmax for the look it gives).
Digital, though, is revolutionizing the photographic industry in a way that has been nothing short of astounding. It is here in the present and will be down the road. And like computers, it will only get better, faster and cheaper (at least the cost of the tools).
When researching a photographer who shoots digitally it is important to discern if that photographer is relatively new to the technology or has been using it for a longer period of time (and thus should have the bugs worked out). Examine photographs made by the photographer using digital capture. Most likely, that photographer will have work that was also captured with film.
Compare them and see if you can tell the difference. When I discuss digital vs. film with prospective couples these days, I find much less resistance than I did a year ago. Couples are usually pretty technologically savvy and often follow the developments in our industry, at least on the periphery.
Any opposition some might have to digital goes away when I show them images that are captured on digital (on a Canon 1d - 4.1 megapixel chip camera) that are quite large (14 x 22 full bleed in an 11 x 14 inch album) . They also see many images that have been captured on film, though scanned. Some folks are able to notice the differences, but most really don¹t care.
What they care about are the images and the feelings that they capture and evoke.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.
Related Questions
What is are the advantages, if any, of film photography over digital photography?
Are you a "digital native"(grew up with digital technology) or an "digital immigrant" (learn to use digital technology as an adult)?
If 99.9 percent of animals that once lived are now extinct what animals are not extinct that lived hundreds of millions of years ago?
Extinct animals and why they are extinct?
Why are the animals that are almost extinct almost extinct?
What is a digital photo? Is it one taken with a digital camera and then printed from a home printer?