Reading mode: Light Dark

What is digital photo

Go to last post
What do you hope to accomplish with this question?

Do you want to eliminate distinctions in terminology between a photo that begins on film but gets scanned at some point and a photo that begins on a digital sensor?

Do you accept the distinctions but you want to suggest new terminology for those distinctions?

Are you writing a dictionary?
 
Last edited:
Russar said:
Ellis Vener said:
Russar said:
First, let's start with some definitions and history.

According to the Oxford Dictionary:

Now, according to the presented above definitions, my old film negative or print scanned and digitally presented for a printout or as a digital file for dpreview or other digital media site is a digital photo.
Click to expand...
The digital copy is.

but if you are trying to argue that the after the fact duplication has transformed the original negative or positive film image has magically become a digital image that is equivalent to saying you are a fighter pilot since you played an air war game on a computer.
Click to expand...
No, Mr. Vener. What I'm saying is that the final image processing (technology, tools, materials, etc.) define what kind of work it is.
Click to expand...
Photography is the process of recording light. Currently there are two generally used technical processes to do that : the use of light sensitive chemical compounds which require the use of chemical agents to move the latent image into a visible form, and the use of photosensitive cells and computational processes to make the iamge visibale.

That is all photography is.

What and how you photograph (or scan), and what you do with or to those images and how those images are then interpreted are completely separate processes.
 
Russar said:
Ellis Vener said:
Russar said:
First, let's start with some definitions and history.

According to the Oxford Dictionary:

Now, according to the presented above definitions, my old film negative or print scanned and digitally presented for a printout or as a digital file for dpreview or other digital media site is a digital photo.
Click to expand...
The digital copy is.

but if you are trying to argue that the after the fact duplication has transformed the original negative or positive film image has magically become a digital image that is equivalent to saying you are a fighter pilot since you played an air war game on a computer.
Click to expand...
No, Mr. Vener. What I'm saying is that the final image processing (technology, tools, materials, etc.) define what kind of work it is.
Click to expand...
Look at the "using a camera" part of the definition of a photograph. That determines if the photograph is analog or digital.
 
mamallama said:
Russar said:
Ellis Vener said:
Russar said:
First, let's start with some definitions and history.

According to the Oxford Dictionary:

Now, according to the presented above definitions, my old film negative or print scanned and digitally presented for a printout or as a digital file for dpreview or other digital media site is a digital photo.
Click to expand...
The digital copy is.

but if you are trying to argue that the after the fact duplication has transformed the original negative or positive film image has magically become a digital image that is equivalent to saying you are a fighter pilot since you played an air war game on a computer.
Click to expand...
No, Mr. Vener. What I'm saying is that the final image processing (technology, tools, materials, etc.) define what kind of work it is.
Click to expand...
Look at the "using a camera" part of the definition of a photograph. That determines if the photograph is analog or digital.
Click to expand...
How so? And how are you defining camera?
 
Ellis Vener said:
mamallama said:
Russar said:
Ellis Vener said:
Russar said:
First, let's start with some definitions and history.

According to the Oxford Dictionary:

Now, according to the presented above definitions, my old film negative or print scanned and digitally presented for a printout or as a digital file for dpreview or other digital media site is a digital photo.
Click to expand...
The digital copy is.

but if you are trying to argue that the after the fact duplication has transformed the original negative or positive film image has magically become a digital image that is equivalent to saying you are a fighter pilot since you played an air war game on a computer.
Click to expand...
No, Mr. Vener. What I'm saying is that the final image processing (technology, tools, materials, etc.) define what kind of work it is.
Click to expand...
Look at the "using a camera" part of the definition of a photograph. That determines if the photograph is analog or digital.
Click to expand...
How so? And how are you defining camera?
Click to expand...
Camera is defined in the definition of photograph as posted by the OP.

Photograph – A picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
 
colesf said:
MikeDixonPhoto said:
A scan is just a digital photo of the negative or print, it's no different than a photo taken with a digital camera.
Click to expand...
A scan IS different from a photo taken with a digital camera. A good scan actually captures more of the essence of film: the grain and contrast. Medium format film is notable not for its lack of grain, but for the small, subtle way it affects the image. 35mm films like Tri-X have their own particular granularity which can be used for artistic effect.

While it's true that you can push a button and get "Tri-X" or whatever granularity you want, it's not the same as what film really has. It's just a fake approximation.

The other issue is color. Digital cameras have their own peculiar color balances, often presenting florescent greens, yellows, and reds. Many color negative films such as Portra, the color balances of which were developed over decades, can be much more pleasing and neutral. You can try to copy this with a digital camera or software, but it's not easy. A good scan can, right off the bat, quickly deliver this color balance without much fussing.

Lastly, contrast is very different with scanned black and white versus a digital camera. You can twiddle endlessly to get all of the tones of a scene in a certain balance with each other, but in the end it may be easier to achieve this simply with the right film. That's why the passing of Plus-X is regrettable: you could immediately get a beautiful contrast range from a scan.

Digital cameras do not equal digital scans. And let's not talk about darkroom prints...
Click to expand...
What I meant is that a scan is no different than taking a digital photo of the film print, although a scan probably has better results.
 
sybersitizen said:
What do you hope to accomplish with this question?

Do you want to eliminate distinctions in terminology between a photo that begins on film but gets scanned at some point and a photo that begins on a digital sensor?
Click to expand...
For me, photography is artwork, that differs from the shots made for driving licenses, criminal records, etc. And every photo starts in the soul, brain, eye of the photographer. The process follows. If the final phase of this action, editing and printing, is the digital process - the resulting object is the digital photo.
sybersitizen said:
Do you accept the distinctions but you want to suggest new terminology for those distinctions?

Are you writing a dictionary?
Click to expand...
Nope, I don't. Just am fluent, speaking, writing, publishing in four languages.
 
in 1996 Fujifilm introduced their first digital mini lab. (to handle APS)

From that point onward all prints made from those labs were "digital" (result of scanning) regardless of how they started . However the original photo remained analogue if it had started as a neg or was digital if it came from a digital camera.

That is why the lab staff, sales people and customers continued to refer to a print as from film or digital.
 
FrancoD said:
in 1996 Fujifilm introduced their first digital mini lab. (to handle APS)

From that point onward all prints made from those labs were "digital" (result of scanning) regardless of how they started . However the original photo remained analogue if it had started as a neg or was digital if it came from a digital camera.

That is why the lab staff, sales people and customers continued to refer to a print as from film or digital.
Click to expand...
Digital print vs. Digital photo (or photography); there is a difference.
 
Last edited:
Russar said:
sybersitizen said:
What do you hope to accomplish with this question?

Do you want to eliminate distinctions in terminology between a photo that begins on film but gets scanned at some point and a photo that begins on a digital sensor?
Click to expand...
For me, photography is artwork, that differs from the shots made for driving licenses, criminal records, etc.
Click to expand...
Then you're making up your own personal definitions and distinctions because the actual word photography applies to all those things, and much more.
Russar said:
And every photo starts in the soul, brain, eye of the photographer.
Click to expand...
There are hundreds of thousands of photos shot every day where there is no photographer involved at all (because they're automated or triggered by external events), let alone a photographer's soul, brain, or eye. But you're ignoring all that because you have your own definition of photography.
Russar said:
The process follows. If the final phase of this action, editing and printing, is the digital process - the resulting object is the digital photo.
Click to expand...
So ... what if it is?
Russar said:
Russar said:
Do you accept the distinctions but you want to suggest new terminology for those distinctions?

Are you writing a dictionary?
Click to expand...
Nope, I don't. Just am fluent, speaking, writing, publishing in four languages.
Click to expand...
Which explains nothing about what you hope to accomplish. If the goal is to just fritter away time, it's working. You can expect people to ignore what you think just as you ignore aspects of photography that you don't want to recognize.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what the point of this thread really is but if you go back to basics at where the image is captured then film grain is digital and a sensor is analog in nature.

From that point forward the path could be digital or analog or a mixture of both but it all starts quite the reverse to what many think.

The only part I consider digital is the digit I use to press the shutter button, all the rest doesn't matter how it was done. :-)

Regards..... Guy
 
Guy Parsons said:
Not sure what the point of this thread really is but if you go back to basics at where the image is captured then film grain is digital
Click to expand...
There is NOTHING digital about film grain.
Guy Parsons said:
and a sensor is analog in nature.
Click to expand...
Light is analog and the sensor in the early stages of processing it convert light to digital with the ADC.
Guy Parsons said:
From that point forward the path could be digital or analog or a mixture of both but it all starts quite the reverse to what many think.
Click to expand...
The processing is all digital between the ADC and the DAC to display the image.
Guy Parsons said:
The only part I consider digital is the digit I use to press the shutter button, all the rest doesn't matter how it was done. :-)

Regards..... Guy
Click to expand...
 
Russar said:
First, let's start with some definitions and history.

According to the Oxford Dictionary:

Photograph – A picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.

Photography – The art or practice of taking and processing photographs.

This art/practice about two centuries of history, if we do not count camera obscura imaging which is many centuries old since Niépce managed to fix an image that was captured with a camera. Niépce's associate Daguerre went on to develop the daguerreotype process, the first publicly announced viable photographic process.

Now, here are the scientific definitions of analog and digital signals:
  • Analog signal is a continuous signal which represents physical measurements.
  • Digital signals are discrete time signals generated by digital modulation.
Now, according to the presented above definitions, my old film negative or print scanned and digitally presented for a printout or as a digital file for dpreview or other digital media site is a digital photo.
Click to expand...
If some authoritative person declared your image, with absolute certainty, to be one or the other how would that change anything?
 
mamallama said:
Guy Parsons said:
Not sure what the point of this thread really is but if you go back to basics at where the image is captured then film grain is digital
Click to expand...
There is NOTHING digital about film grain.
Click to expand...
Photon hits silver compound, it changes.

Photon does not hit silver compound, does not change.

Seems binary to me and that's a bit digital.
mamallama said:
mamallama said:
and a sensor is analog in nature.
Click to expand...
Light is analog and the sensor in the early stages of processing it convert light to digital with the ADC.
Click to expand...
The pixels are little analog wells of electrons, and need an analog to digital converter to give it a measure that the computer can recognise. So it starts out analog.
mamallama said:
mamallama said:
From that point forward the path could be digital or analog or a mixture of both but it all starts quite the reverse to what many think.
Click to expand...
The processing is all digital between the ADC and the DAC to display the image.
mamallama said:
The only part I consider digital is the digit I use to press the shutter button, all the rest doesn't matter how it was done. :-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Guy Parsons said:
mamallama said:
Guy Parsons said:
Not sure what the point of this thread really is but if you go back to basics at where the image is captured then film grain is digital
Click to expand...
There is NOTHING digital about film grain.
Click to expand...
Photon hits silver compound, it changes.

Photon does not hit silver compound, does not change.

Seems binary to me and that's a bit digital.
Click to expand...
Nothing is ever digitally encoded or digitally processed.
Guy Parsons said:
Guy Parsons said:
Guy Parsons said:
and a sensor is analog in nature.
Click to expand...
Light is analog and the sensor in the early stages of processing it convert light to digital with the ADC.
Click to expand...
The pixels are little analog wells of electrons, and need an analog to digital converter to give it a measure that the computer can recognise. So it starts out analog.
Click to expand...
No argument there. Light is analog and that is what it starts out being.
Guy Parsons said:
Guy Parsons said:
Guy Parsons said:
From that point forward the path could be digital or analog or a mixture of both but it all starts quite the reverse to what many think.
Click to expand...
The processing is all digital between the ADC and the DAC to display the image.
Guy Parsons said:
The only part I consider digital is the digit I use to press the shutter button, all the rest doesn't matter how it was done. :-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Russar said:
F
Click to expand...
(A bunch of stuff)
Russar said:
Now, according to the presented above definitions, my old film negative or print scanned and digitally presented for a printout or as a digital file for dpreview or other digital media site is a digital photo.
Click to expand...
No.

None of these are digital photographs. Not one. It is a retrospective from 2017. They are all film based and the result of light sensitive materials that are chemically affected to generate negatives and transparencies. Those are mounted in a 45 enlarger and projected onto more light sensitive materials soaked in more chemicals and , well , ya'll know the rest.

5548888a54584766b80db5473ee0b638.jpg.png


A digital scan of a film original is not a digital photograph, it is a digital scan.

A photo of a piece of cake is not a piece of cake. It is a representation of a piece of cake.

A scan is a digital representation of the information displayed on the film . It is not a photo.

--
dw
 
Some people have too much time or their hands, or aren't taking enough photos.

A scanned in image from a negative or print is a digital copy. The only way you can get a digital photograph is by using a digital camera.

Consider a vinyl recording. Converting it to digital doesn't magically make it a digital recording. It will forever be an analog recording, with all the implied properties.

A print is not a "photograph." To think otherwise would mean that every print is a digital photograph because all printers use digital techniques to print the image.

And that's all I'll say about this, because some people just like to argue.
 
stevo23 said:
Seems that this whole discussion comes down to semantics and what people are willing to accept. I would liken it to CDs - DDD, ADD, AAD etc. There is digital or analog capture, processing and "mastering".
Click to expand...
Way too many discussions on DPR involve people disagreeing with others based on fine points of interpretation. They seem to be people trying to prove how smart they are.
 
mamallama said:
Guy Parsons said:
mamallama said:
Guy Parsons said:
Not sure what the point of this thread really is but if you go back to basics at where the image is captured then film grain is digital
Click to expand...
There is NOTHING digital about film grain.
Click to expand...
Photon hits silver compound, it changes.

Photon does not hit silver compound, does not change.

Seems binary to me and that's a bit digital.
Click to expand...
Nothing is ever digitally encoded or digitally processed.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's very digitally encoded, just not on a medium you can transfer easily to the medium we're so familiar with today.
mamallama said:
mamallama said:
mamallama said:
mamallama said:
and a sensor is analog in nature.
Click to expand...
Light is analog and the sensor in the early stages of processing it convert light to digital with the ADC.
Click to expand...
The pixels are little analog wells of electrons, and need an analog to digital converter to give it a measure that the computer can recognise. So it starts out analog.
Click to expand...
No argument there. Light is analog and that is what it starts out being.
mamallama said:
mamallama said:
mamallama said:
From that point forward the path could be digital or analog or a mixture of both but it all starts quite the reverse to what many think.
Click to expand...
The processing is all digital between the ADC and the DAC to display the image.
mamallama said:
The only part I consider digital is the digit I use to press the shutter button, all the rest doesn't matter how it was done. :-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Russar said:
First, let's start with some definitions and history.
Click to expand...
It's a common misconception that dictionaries actually define the meanings of words: they don't. What they do is give what their lexicographers have understood to be the established meaning (or meanings) of words.

But a major problem, especially with technical words, is that the lexicographers don't really understand what they are dealing with. That is, conveniently for this discussion, illustrated by your first definition.
Russar said:
According to the Oxford Dictionary:

Photograph – A picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
Click to expand...
The phrase I've underlined describes how a picture is made from a film photo but has nothing to do with a digital photo - a digital photo has electronic and computer treatment, not chemical treatment.

In other words, the definition is simply and straightforwardly wrong. As soon as the definition is wrong any conclusion based solely on it must also be wrong.
Russar said:
Photography – The art or practice of taking and processing photographs.

This art/practice about two centuries of history, if we do not count camera obscura imaging which is many centuries old
Click to expand...
… and, of course, we should not count the camera obscura because it didn't conform to the correct part of your first definition "in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive material".
Russar said:
since Niépce managed to fix an image that was captured with a camera. Niépce's associate Daguerre went on to develop the daguerreotype process, the first publicly announced viable photographic process.

Now, here are the scientific definitions of analog and digital signals:
  • Analog signal is a continuous signal which represents physical measurements.
  • Digital signals are discrete time signals generated by digital modulation.
Click to expand...
Again, I don't think these stand up as valid definitions, although they are fair descriptions of what happens.
Russar said:
Now, according to the presented above definitions, my old film negative or print scanned and digitally presented for a printout or as a digital file for dpreview or other digital media site is a digital photo.
Click to expand...
As above - if the definition is wrong so is a conclusion drawn from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top