Digital for The Sake of Health

While researching some of the downfalls that digital has created for film photography I ran across an article that caught my eye. In this case, digital has not only changed an occupation, it has helped with the detection of breast cancer in women. In the article "Mamograms go Digital" by Clint Cooper taken from the Chattanooga Times (January 2007) the use of digital photography is actually enhancing the ability to detect breast cancer in an amazing time frame. This article suggested "...digital imaging improved cancer detection by 15 percent in women under age 50 and in those nearing menopause and by 11 percent in women of any age with dense breasts." It has also been proven to use less radiation, create sharper image quality and now they have the ability to readily track change in the images by saving them to a computer disk. This is once instance in which digital is actually improving the quality in life of women all over the world. Although many doctors and avid film lovers are opposed to the use of this new technology, it can not be denied that in this field it is better to go digital. Sometimes we have to hang up the towel and realize that all new things are not bad. If the advancement of digitial technology in mamograms means that more women are able to detect breast cancer at an earlier stage, I say go digital for the sake of health.

Can I get that on a disk?

I have been working for a film corporated photography studio for three years and almost every day customers ask when we are going digital. Even more than this question is the habitual question of "can I get my proofs on a disk?". I have become more and more amazed by the amount of people who expect to get copyright from a corporated studio. Also on at least a weekly basis I have customers who try to take pictures with thier own cameras while photographers are working hard to create great memories. The art of photography is dying. Many people want everything for little to nothing and it is hard to convince them of the artwork that is being created. A lot of people believe that the fact that a corporated studio does not hand over all copyrighted work on a disk is ludacris. Scanners, software and cds have become the main weapon of destruction for film photography. With the ability to download, send and print portraits from the convenience of their own homes at a low rate of cost-the rate at which people are buying professional portraits is dwindling. My question is when will we begin to sell ourselves short and give away our rights as photographers and artists to maximize on our business? With this new era of digital photography this end result of selling ourselves short seems inevitable.

The Photoshop Dilemma

Adobe's softwart program, Photohop 7.0, (although highly lucrative for it's inventors) has been highly destructive to the art and beauty of photography. With many "do it yourself"ers out there, the invention of Photoshop is one more step in the process of film photography extinction. One article in Popular Photographing and Imaging (May 2007) focuses primarily on new tricks of the trade involving Photoshop and the wonders it can do to make your home, candid portraits look professional. This article written by Debbie Grossman guides the reader through many different tools to copy and paste items and people into and out of the picture. It also explains how to take a home snap shot and quickly delete the background and replace it with a "studio like" backdrop. The question at the end of the article, indirectly states the obvious -why pay money for professional portraits when all the resources you need are at home? Access to such software programs are beginning to deteriorate the profession of film photography artists all over the world. Along with the fall of this profession is the appreciation of the craftmanship that true photography exibits. As I have earlier stated, when you buy professional portraits you are not paying for the picture, but the ability to create artwork. If that artwork can be reproduced for a fraction of the cost, then where does the need for photography artwork come from?

The Arguement for Film Over Digital

While many photographers and camera companies are switching to digital imaging, there are still a few who cling to their solid belief in film photography. One article by Terry Lee Goodrich entitled "As industry shifts away from film cameras, some photographers stick with tradition", the author suggests that while many modern photraphers and camera companies are following the lead of the public to be faster, bigger, and better, there are still a few who are determined to stick with good old film. Goodrich stated in his article (published by Fort Worth Star Telegram in February of 2006) that the world has begun to change in it's way of thinking. Now a days it's about what is most convenient, what is the fastest, and what can fit into your pocket without taking up very much space. Along with the drive for photographers to change their format to digital, camera companies are also seeing the same pressing need to upgrade their product. Goodrich reiterated this concept with the news that Nikon Corporation, which has based its business soley on photography, will stop making most of its film cameras to concentrate on digital ones. Nikon Corp. Another company widely known throughout the photography business, Konica Minolta also stated that it would stop making cameras, film and color paper by March 2007. And finally one of the most home hitting facts was that out of the 12o members of his film photography group, 90% of Goodrich's comrades converted to digital. The argument stands, however, that even if one does change to digital the ability to take good photography is essential. Although this may be an end of an era for the film photographer, the artform of photography will (hopefully) still live on.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX); 02/27/2006

The "Digital" Era

As digital imaging progresses more and more through the years, many film photographers feel the pressure to assimilate into this new era. Without thinking about the repercussions to old fashioned film studios and photographers, new technology has inevitably destroyed the artform that was once considered priceless. The introduction of digital cameras along with the ablity to scan and upload copyrighted information with little to no repercussion has turned film photography from essential to non-existent. The question is, with so much advancement in technology, are we losing the appreciation of an artform to what is cheaper and easier in the end? When a photographer takes a portrait, he or she is not selling the portrait, but the ability to create a memory that will last a lifetime. With our new age digital cameras we are taking that artform into our own, unprofessional hands and settling for snapshots that cost 40 cents to develop at Wal-Mart. Or even worse, those who are purchasing portraits from a professional photographer are scanning them to computers and printing them at little cost while the photographer looses in profit. What should be done to save this art, or is there anything we can do at all?