I have been asked twice in the past few weeks to give my opinion on traditional vs. digital photo processes.  I find it interesting that this remains an argument in the photographic universe, and even more interesting that many people seem to take an either/or approach.

Digital photography is here to stay.  There are those of us who fought the dominance of cassettes over CDs, email over snail mail, and even questioned the necessity of high-speed internet when dial-up started to become obsolete.  Once an advance in technology comes down the line, it is impossible to roll it back, for better or worse.  Throughout history there are plenty of occasions when our ingenuity has led us down a not-so-nice road, but there is no “un-discovery,” only a need to consider carefully what we have made.

In a given body of work, the choice between film and digital can have a profound effect on the content and meaning of the photographs, a fact that often seems overlooked in the ideological debate of old versus new.  We need to make the choice consciously and intelligently, the same way we choose a film speed to attain a specific look and feel to our images.

This intelligent choice forms the crux of my view on the matter and brings out a critical issue presented by cheap digital technology.  The digital camera revolution, with more than a little help from the internet, has brought photography to the masses like never before. 

The difference between consumer film cameras and professional photographic ones has usually been clear.  The Pentax 35mm point and shoot that carried me through middle and high school took snapshots.  My finished film and prints came from the one-hour photo and I placed them into fuzzy, leopard-print albums for safekeeping.  The big SLR had many more moving parts and I developed those prints myself.  At that point I was taking photographs.

Cheap consumer digital cameras have opened the floodgates for free, unlimited high-resolution pictures.  Even digital SLRs are now within everyone’s reach.  When I was in Europe, the vast majority of American tourists I saw had dSLRs.  However, I doubt many of them were utilizing the full potential of their equipment simply because they were using them as glorified point and shoots, setting the camera on full auto and snapping away.

The key here is conscious choice.  If I photograph the ruins of Bethlehem steel with really fast, really grainy black and white film, I alter the content of that work when I go back and shoot the scene at ISO 100.  Likewise, digital photographs provide a different process and a different feel.  The fact that black and white prints are made by hand and digital prints are computer- and machine-generated is significant.

Digital photography as a professional tool presents us with some responsibility.  Knowing and experiencing both processes is essential to developing a full mastery of the medium.  Choosing one over the other should be something every photographer can explain.  When using a digital SLR, I find it necessary to use all manual controls to achieve the image I want.  This is important. 

Creating truly great photographs should still require us to stop and consider the scene, adjust the aperture, shutter speed, and focus, and carefully frame the shot.  We should still look at the light meter.  Photography hasn’t changed that much.  It is still about a lot of exploration and intelligent choices with some happy accidents mixed in, all of which should be made by our own hand.  Digital has a lot of tempting shortcuts, but we must learn all the techniques of the medium if we want to mature as image-makers.  Otherwise we are just taking very pretty snapshots.