Why or why not?
I have found that digital is more cost efficient, practical and of better quality.
2006-08-14 08:51:48 · 14 answers · asked by mountaingirl88 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
I'm talking about photography! I'm talking about the practical side of it.
2006-08-14 09:08:04 · update #1
Yes, because if a picture doesn't turn out the way you want you delete it instead of finding out when you develop the film, it costs less, and is more time efficient because it saves you the time of going to get pictures developed, also, they usually have better zoom and quality, and on some you can even record movies type things, which is a great plus.
2006-08-14 09:02:17 · answer #1 · answered by hott_mandi42 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you're talking photography. Sure. For one thing, and here's something no one ever mentions, we don't have to worry about photographers pouring their chemistry down the sink now. How un PC of me to mention the environment, huh? And in so many other ways, digital photogrpahy is an improvement on traditional.
I worked for fifteen years in photography, and I can tell you for sure, film is dead. Pretty soon it will be only available for specialty, and that's a good thing so far as I'm concerned.
Now if you're talking the other arts. I'm not sure I'd agree. Digital music, as a concept, has proved destructive to the field of music. Simply put, fewer and fewer people actually play an instrument, or know how to write and arrange without software. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of great and interesting digital music out there... but what's being lost will be hard to replace. Like jobs for musicians. Again not very PC of me to bring up the livlihood of musicians... and I'm not talking about celebrities. I mean people that actually play music for a living. Getting to be a lost thing, sadly, ask any drummer what they think of drum machines...
Are other aspects of digital graphics (3D art comes to mind here) better than traditional painting or sculpting. Not really. They don't represent into the real world until they are actualised in print or form, or on screen...
and there is a coldness to #D art, overcome only by really expert practitioners... and there's not many of those since the traditional art world doesn't really allow yet for it being an art.
As someone who's been involved in all of these things, I would have difficulty saying any of it is 'better' than what existed before.
What, after all, is the purpose of art?
You speak of efficiency. That's not art talking, that's business-speak.
2006-08-14 16:06:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would not agree. I think that digital is a cheap version of photography. I'm not knocking it -- I have both a digital and SLR (single-lens reflex) cameras and find that the better quality is witin the SLR. You can buy digital cameras that are Single-lens reflex, but I think it all resides in the actual film.
The wave of the future holds digital in high reguard, but I don't think film photographs will go out of style.
2006-08-14 16:02:19 · answer #3 · answered by blacklight_poetry 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am a photographer and worked with both for the past seven years. Both have respectable qualities. However, I love digital and I don't think I'll ever go back to a film camera again. Plus with digital, you don't have hazardous chemicals nearly as much compared with traditional film.
2006-08-14 16:01:00 · answer #4 · answered by Linzy Rae 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you ask any professional photographer they would say Film is superior to digital. Also film photos last for many many years time whereas digital photos lose picture quality over time. Personally I find digitial photos don't catch the same quality.
P.S. - I'm just talking about photos. If you mean like movies and stuff then digital is better... but not much.
2006-08-14 15:59:57 · answer #5 · answered by Sleepyguy 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i like digital better because i can edit and view my pictures while they are still on the camera. I also like being able to erase picture so i dont have to waste money printing out bad pictures. Film is ok because its cheaper but it doesnt hold as amny pictures so you have to buy more film so the prices even out in the end. The pictures also tend to be clearer and of better quality and the zoom on the digital cameras are better.
so im with you. my vote has to be for the digital : )
2006-08-14 16:00:12 · answer #6 · answered by Jstlovinyou 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I like film, but I am an amateur photographer. Digital is very convenient though.
2006-08-14 16:04:01 · answer #7 · answered by emmadropit 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do digital is easy to process and send instantly
2006-08-14 15:55:28 · answer #8 · answered by tijiani007 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it is, so yes
but on occasion film is nice......like if you want to put pictures in an album or even print them. they turn out better on film than on paper
2006-08-14 15:56:21 · answer #9 · answered by its ME !!! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Umm, it's pretty obvious.
2006-08-14 15:56:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋