Film v digital image statistics
Are there any statistics about numbers of still images taken each year? I just wondered at what stage/year in the development of digital photography, the quantity of images made worldwide surpassed those made on film since film became available and how that relationship of film/digital ratio number now stacks up as we move into the future.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
IMHO taken means nothing, probably most mean nothing even for the taker. Relevant is what matters, and that number appears to be decreasing with media overload.
I think you're correct
I think comparing numbers of film vs digital statistics is not relevant. Used to be. Analog photography has become a fine art process. It's almost like comparing how many SD cards are used versus how many sheets of watercolor paper is consumed.
Originally Posted by Muihlinn
“We are buried beneath the weight of information, which is being confused with knowledge; quantity is being confused with abundance and wealth with happiness.
We are monkeys with money and guns.”
― Tom Waits
Might as well include the number of frames in video as stills also, since that's the way my copy of Final Cut Pro X sees it. Redunculous. Maybe a tally of actual prints made one way or another, might have a chance of being more relevant, to some people.
On a related note, does anyone have statistics on the number of useful, versus absurd, thread starts by Cliveh?
Originally Posted by cliveh
That would need to take into account when Middle Classes in Asian countries became a significant % age of the population, how much that weighed on affordability + when did the smartphone or the cameraphone become widely available. (and what weightage to give to each)
Not a very easy comparison by simple nos.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I could take, as a sample, the number of shots hanging on my wall made by my dslrs, as a total fraction of number of shots I've taken in total with digital means, compared to the money that I've spent on dslr equipment, then I could compare that to the number of prints on my wall, either wet-printed or scan/inkjet, divide by the number of total frames I've shot on film, compared to the money I've spent on film bodies, film, lab processing or chemicals, take into account my computer, 27" monitor, inkjet printer and ink that serves double-duty sometimes for both dslr shots and e6 scans, and the end result might tell you something about why I'm less further ahead on my mortgage than 2 years ago, drive my mum's old car that I can't afford to fix, and had baked beans, frozen spinach and rice in the microwave for dinner last night.
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
f/64 and be there.
Do numbers really matter? Last I looked, quantity and quality do not have a cause and effect relationship.
We can all argue finer points of each genre, but it is much like the pixel peeping digi crowd.
No, a memory card will likely not last 100 years. If it did, the equipment to read it likely will not.
However, with modern error correction software, a fifteenth generation copy will have all the detail and hues of the first. Can even the best reproduction film do that? No.
But rather than banging on a topic that has no place here, and taking cheap shots at each other. How about we grab some film and go take pictures?
Number of mobile phones in the world is around same number as number of people in the world:
Lets say every second has a digital camera, and people have for sure 1000 or more photos in phone - so only in phones:
But number of photos on paper (prints) from digital source - this is another thing - I think less than 0,0000000001% of that junk is going on the paper.
But as already stated - this means nothing
I had the same question an got it answered by google. the numbers are in the billions
Originally Posted by cliveh
I think you would have so many changing sources to collate, that it's not really practical or relevant.
Before the explosion in internet image sharing, people would mainly view their printed images or digital photos at home. So no reliable statistics would be available.
Today, analogue photos shared online probably is in the parts per million range compared to digital photos.