Isn't digital photography just photography?

[asafrye]

<p>So I was browsing in a bookstore today the name of which I won't mention but it has a "B" and "N" in it, and after looking through the books in the "photography" section (I was looking to see what was available on the subject of photography business forms) and not finding much that was useful, I wandered over to the "digital photography" section to browse a bit more. . .then the question jumped into my head, "Why are there two different photography sections?" OK, sure. . .the digital stuff has historically been located along with books on Photoshop and other topics related to web-based publishing. But, after soooo much debating, isn't it clear that digital photography IS photography, and arguably the preferred format for today's working professionals? So when you go to the "photography" section in a book store shouldn't you find ALL things of photography, both digital and film, in one convenient location? During my "quest" I found a much larger selection of books on lighting techniques, etc. in the "digital photography" section. Are lighting techniques for digital different than those for film? Don't the (I'm sure many) photographers who continue to shoot with film still also do some bit of scanning and digital editing? So shouldn't all these books and reference materials be shelved in one common section?</p>

[tmcleland]

Don't worry. Pretty soon it will be that way, only we will have to specifically say FILM photography. There will be a film

section (hopefully not between the history section and the 80% off bin).

 

In the grand scheme of things, digital photography is still a new-fangled thing. Relativealy speaking it just started being

taken seriously when you think about it. Beyond that, the methods to arrive at the final photo, particularly the part after the

shutter closes, is different. So in that regard, they should be differentiated. Talking about developer isn't going to get you

very far with a memory card, right? ;-)

 

Supposedly when electric guitars first started showing up, the acoustic guys kinda "poo-pooed" the electric guys as "not

real guitarists." Same basic concept, same basic technique, yet the addition of an electric magnet somehow made them

two different things entirely. Sound vaguely familiar?

 

So yes, it is all just photography. Were just in that weird gray area where the two still are seen as somehow separate

because of something as minor as sensor instead of film, Photoshop instead of darkroom. Gve it time, I think the two will

eventually just be seen for what they are, slightly different means to the same end.

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Yup. The only significant difference is the recording medium, and the increased flexibility and convenience that brings.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>I don't think the store-with-B-and-N-in-it was practicing any kind of photographic apartheid, just organizing their books by subject to make stuff easier to find.....</p>

[dgfassett]

<p>Digital Imaging versus Photography. One represents an interpretation of reality, the other most usually represents a recording of reality. You have to be a photographer to understand the great difference.</p>

[aeaster]

<p>Asa, the short answer to your question is "yes -- photography is photography" -- but B&N isn't about photography at all. B&N is about making a profit by selling stuff. It's called "marketing" and it is all about making the most money by exploiting current fads and fashion.</p>

<p>No one today disputes the fact that digital technology is here to stay, (well, at least until the next new thing takes its place). No one should even dispute that silver-based photography is now a minority interest. However there is still a Madison Avenue imposed divide between the young & hip & oh so fashionable youth market and that stodgy old collection of fossils that probably voted for John McCain anyway.</p>

<p>(If this sounds cynical and simplistic, I currently make my living by marketing cheap Chinese-made crap to people with more money than brains. I used to work in the journalism/publishing industry where the marketing bullsh*t was 10 times worse. But I digress.)</p>

<p>Because many people would fear being though of as uncool if they didn't have the latest toy, marketers pander to those insecurities by festooning "Digital!" or "Extreme!" (and even just "X-Treme!") on the label. This is to let all of your friends know that you are just so cool and urban. When you are just too cool and urban, your buddies will buy you more beer and all the hot chicks will want to sleep with you.</p>

<p>"Urban" -- now there is another over-used word in the marketing world. What makes any product more urban than it is suburban or rural escapes me for the moment.</p>

<p>The tag "Digital" won't just be seen on generic photo books. Go into most camera stores (or even Best-Buy or Wal-Mart) and look around. Why do camera bags need to be identified as for digital cameras? Why do filters or tripods or lens-hoods of standard metric lens thread?</p>

<p>Why? Because it's just a cheap but effective trick to make more money, that's why.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Asa:<br /><br />Why different sections for digital and "other" photography? I'd say for the same reason there are many different categories of books that have their "own" places, isles and shelfs. It simply makes it easier for the customers to find what they're looking for - just like in a library.<br /><br />After all, books are all books. Imagine entering a book store to find a book on ancient religions only to have to sift through thousands of books on any other subject before you find what you're looking for. </p>

[randall ellis]

<blockquote>

<p>It simply makes it easier for the customers to find what they're looking for - just like in a library.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is it exactly. Libraries and bookshops both organize according to set criteria (a taxonomy). While academic libraries tend to put all photography books together (in the TR section), bookshops tend to put technical photography books, which these days are primarily digital photography specific, in a separate section because to them this makes sense - photography books = picture books, digital photography books = technical books, hence two separate locations. Depending on the system your local public library uses (either Dewey, Library of Congress, or the 'bookstore' model) this may also be the case. Like the others have stated, it has nothing to do with film v. digital....</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Yes.</p>

[kfoster70]

<p>If you really look at the two different sections you can easily see why B&N did what they did.</p>

<p>In the Photography section the books are typically illustrations of a photographers work (books filled with photographs). Books from Ansel Adams, Anne Leibovitz, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and so on. And maybe youll find a few about technique, exposure, and composition. This section is more about art.</p>

<p>In the Digital Photography section youll find lots of books on photoshop, lightroom, and elements. Youll also find books on printing as well as camera specific "how to guides". And youll also find many books on Digital Photography that encompass all the different elements of photography including buying the camera, exposure, composition, and the editing process. You wont find books of a photographers work. This section is more of a reference section.</p>

<p>I really dont wont to find all these Digital photography books in the regular Photography section.</p>

<p>To me it makes perfect sense to seperate the two sections.</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>Isn't film photography just photography<br /> Any type of still camera is photography<br /> Anything that creates a photographic image is photography<br /> Why even think about it. First I decide to take pictures, then I grab a camera.Digital or Film</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>Heres another one for you<br>

Is it still carpentry if I use a hand saw or a power saw, hammer or nail gun, bubble level or digital level?</p>

[jackaldridge]

<p>Eyes perceive...cameras record... and it makes no difference whether it's film or sensor.<br>

It takes a great photographer to see that! :-)</p>

[andy_szeto]

<p>"Digital" sells.</p>

<p>Filters for digital cameras. Bags for digital cameras. Tripods for digital cameras. Etc. ;)</p>

[richterjw]

<blockquote>

<p>Digital Imaging versus Photography. One represents an interpretation of reality, the other most usually represents a recording of reality. You have to be a photographer to understand the great difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A little prententious. Whenever you decide to record your object via photograph, regardless of the medium, you are necessarily interpreting what is before you. You are intentionally including/excluding information from the photograph; you are interpreting from the reality in front of you what makes an effective photograph. You can't possibly record everything about the scene in front of you, and if you could, it wouldn't make a good photograph. Everything past that requires interpretation. Unless of course I'm not photographer enough to distinguish the difference. JR</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>It's just a marketing thing. "Digital Photography" is a trendy term and more attention getting to people with digital P&S's or those new to DSLR's. When it comes to retail shelf space attention getting is very important. The term, "Photography" is more appealing to those who think of themselves as serious photographers. They used both terms to attract both market segments.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>You have to be a photographer to understand the great difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If one only shoots for photographers, the difference, if it was real, would only matter to photographers who shoot for other photographers. Since very few do, even if this were the case, it would be irrelevant.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> One represents an interpretation of reality, the other most usually represents a recording of reality.

 

OMG...

 

>>>In the Digital Photography section youll find lots of books on photoshop, lightroom, and elements. Youll also find books on printing as

well as camera specific "how to guides". And youll also find many books on Digital Photography that encompass all the different elements

of photography including buying the camera, exposure, composition, and the editing process. You wont find books of a photographers

work. This section is more of a reference section.

 

No, that's the equipment and how-to side of photography. As it's tough to buy a new film camera today, I suspect book

publishers/distributors/retailers are not wild about developing a book about that.

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>There's a TV ad that runs in this area that talks about obtaining training in 'DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY" , "learn how to use the medium to make money in Portraiture, Commercial, Weddings" , etc.</p>

<p>I've also noticed that special section of photography at BN.</p>

<p> </p>

[k5083]

Aw, darn, now you tell me. And here I just finished replacing all my old UV filters with digital UV filters.

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>Is it still carpentry if I use a hand saw or a power saw, hammer or nail gun, bubble level or digital level?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is absolutely not! Most of the construction guys I know say "I'm going to go <em>interpret</em> that 2x12 so we can get these stair stringers in place" if they are using a power tool. They only say something like "I'm going to go cut these 2x6's so we can get that wall framed in" if they are using a hand saw.</p>

<p>But even then, the guys who use sharp rocks tied to a stick give them a lot of crap for it.</p>

[asafrye]

<p>Josh/August: thanks for the LOL! ; )<br>

I think those comments on "digital" being fashionable and hence driving profit differentiation hit the nail on the head. . .hammer or nail gun. . .the point is well received!<br>

When the markets look the same, there will be one section, as TM pointed out.<br>

I don't think it's so much a matter of finding what you're looking for. After all, there's only one "science and technology" section, which is subdivided into Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Engineering, etc. You won't find these in different parts of the store. Today we must take a walk from the "photography" shelf to get over to the "digital photography" shelf passing several other shelves along the way.<br>

Perhaps I'm a little ahead of the times or just plain lazy. Either way, I look forward to the day when I can browse one wall to find all things related to photography in the same way that today I can find on one wall all things related to science, business, architecture, self-improvement, travel, cooking, sports, etc., etc., etc.</p>

[tmcleland]

<i>Today we must take a walk from the "photography" shelf to get over to the "digital photography" shelf passing several

other shelves along the way.</i><br><br>

 

That's actually quite brilliant when you think about it. Might as well get the impulse buy sales while they're at it, right? Go

in for a book on Lightroom, come out with a Stephen King novel?

[dried_squid]

<p>I think it's different. I agree that there are differences in marketing for B&N, as well as the "market" has changed.<br /> For me the "manual exposure and focus" film guy, who jobs out all his film processing and does little post processing of his scanned digital files, the workflows and user interfaces are significantly different, and warrant the distinction "digital photography".<br /> As a fractured example, consider the 35mm full frame camera, K-14, E-6, and C-41. Is there much of a counterpart in digital cameras and camera profiles and photo editors? Film and memory cards are not equivalent in the process of storing information about an image.<br /> I look at my shutter speed dial on the right near my shutter, and the aperature ring around the lens, and ISO dial on the left. I look at the 35 mm film canister. I look at the load/wind and rewind/unload process. My Nikon looks like my friend's Canon. The user interface is very similar.<br /> Not the same with digital cameras. Maybe because for me, virgin to digital camera exposures, every digital camera has more knobs, dials, buttons, and displays. And it seems like each digital camera is different. When people ask me to take a picture with their camera, I always ask "Is this the shutter button?"<br /> I listen to digital photographers talk of their activities, and at least 75% is based on their camera body manufacturer's vocabulary and features. Or Photoshop. It's different.<br /> As a fractured metaphor, think of typewriters and writing, and compare to wordprocessors and web pages. Is digital writing just writing?<br>

It should be. But that's not the way the products will sell. And feature-itis sells.</p>