No, because written language is already digital, typewriter or handwritten makes no fundamental difference, only superficial differences. The differences between real photography and digital imaging are fundamental rather than superficial.Quote:
Comparing a work of literature written out on a typewriter to the same thing written by hand with a nice pen would be a better analogy
Why is written language digital? My diary goes nowhere near a computer.
Written language is digital, because you use digits. :D
And to twist words a bit further; digital photograpy is abstract while analog photography is real.
Why do I pursue analog photography? Because of its tactile nature and the countless nuances of the variables that makes it both wonderful and frustrating at times. I love that I can make a photograph or print.
The darkroom is digital because my digits focus the head! :D
My darkroom is at this point just for personal work.
For commissioned jobs like weddings and senior portraits I shoot, drop the film in the mail, and it comes back "done".
We all have the choice of how much we do ourselves with any particular film we shoot.
I think it's fairly convenient, I have a Nova and the chemicals are ready whenever I am. In fact it's far more convenient than painting, composing a score or writing a poem, to name three other artistic expressions. But then, maybe all of those are digital and there's no difference.
I would suggest that there is also a top-down aspect to digital & computer and a bottom-up aspect to film & darkroom work, that makes for a huge distinction.
By top-down I mean that someone else has made a lot of the decisions for you, although you will likely never know their names, their specific reasoning, or their agendas (sales!). You just have to accept it on faith, because you can't change it. However, I suggest that if you did know their reasoning, it is possible that you would not agree with some of their decisions, like details about how they compute exposures on automatic cameras. They are aiming for a "good photo most of the time." Is that really what you want? Don't you really want a great photo most of the time (unattainable, but worth striving for)?
By bottom-up I mean that you the photographer have to make specific decisions all along the way, including focus, exposure, development, printing, etc. It is difficult and errors are likely, although you are the one in control. Nobody is forcing you to do things a certain way (sometimes for their own reasons, e.g. marketing). Perhaps some manufacturers (Kodak) influenced how you did things, but it was a fairly soft touch compared to the domineering control behind modern digital products.
There is a political analogy to the top-down, bottom-up philosophy but maybe I better not go there. But personally I hate the top-down form of anything. People you don't know are making decisions that affect you, without your input or knowledge. And you have to pay them for their services, big time. Orwell understood this completely, many years ago.
Having written sofware professionally for the last 20+ years I am acutely aware of the degree to which my design and implementation choices can and do limit the end user's choices, often intentionally.
For example, I much prefer implementing a dodge or burn by physically casting shadows in the projected enlarger light using my hands, rather than simply clicking a mouse to execute some nameless programmer's algorithm which merely simulates his interpretation of that reality.
But that's just me...