Recently conducted a kind of Vox Pop survey of both my VET students and my Diploma of Arts Students {Applied Photography} on Computers, analog image making. The responses have me thinking about the nature of Digital compared to analog We are approaching a generation who won't have the knowledge, appreciation or understanding of analog. In some ways I just wonder if this is really important, in other ways I am incensed that people think digital is inherently better. So what are the advantages to digital over analog? How do you describe the differences between the two? Is there any point in making comparisons, am I indeed comparing Apples to Pears?
Lets start with dictionary definitions. Abridged from my Macquarie Dictionary.
This actually doesn't really clear things up for me. I guess what these definitions are really saying is that Digital is either on or off where as analog is variable depending on input? This means that the output from analog input devices, film, is not simply a matter of on or off. Exposure is not a straight line occurrence, factors like exposure development time and temperature affect the resulting negative sometimes adversely. I do know for example that each step in the process of analog photography if incorrectly handled can result in a loss of information and sometimes a distortion of that information. For example re-copying an image results in an increase in contrast if you don't use the right type of film and pay careful attention to your exposure. Duplicating a digital file results in none these problems, a fact that has put a bee up the asses of the music industry.
Is this then why people prefer digital over analog, I know some of the responses I got from my VET class in particular hinted at ease of use, “it's easier”. Yes analog requires a high level of input to to master, but is that a bad thing? As Peter Dormer talks about in his book The Art of the maker, often learning a craft takes time and working closely with a skilled person for that period of time. What kind of losses are being incurred by the speed of the digital process over the analog? I feel the need for a table here a table of comparative results between the two processes and methodologies.
| Digital | Pros | Cons |
| Speed | Less exposure latitude than film | |
| Ease of Use | Storage mediums can be a problem, as technologies upgrade | |
| Limitless copying | Manipulation Applications don't allow an under the hood approach to most users | |
| Storage space for images/files | Ease of deletion means a loss of cultural history | |
| Democratic process, can be easy to learn | Small to non existent history of published texts | |
| Only requires a desk, no special room | ||
| No ongoing film costs | ||
| Analog | Pros | Cons |
| Easy to learn | Can be hard to master | |
| Comparatively cheap basic/starter equipment | Mastering of technique often requires and 'apprenticeship' of sorts | |
| Processes can tinkered under the hood easily, long history of published texts | Storage of film and prints requires physical space. | |
| Simple to control {once mastered} | Unexposed materials require special handling, refrigeration/darkroom | |
| No loss if treated with the right approach to entire process | ||
| Film has better exposure latitude than CCD especially negative films |