Talk:Digital Photography/Introduction

Digital versus traditional? You mean "Digital capture, processing and display versus non-digital capture, processing and display", right?
Sorry, but digital IS "traditional" for people who've never used or seen anything else. Perhaps you mean "historic" or "analog" or "current technical generation versus previous technical generations(s)". There's a similar problem in organized academically supported medicine practice versus traditional medicine, which they call "alternative" even though it's been the "traditional" health and healing mainstay for thousands of years longer than the new fangled "medial" stuff. Naming things clearly, unambiguously, timelessly, is a challenge, I know, but I think it's worth it. Give it a try. "Digital capture, processing and display versus non-digital capture, processing and display". There, that even suggests a structure upon which to hang the contents. Many people capture digitally, don't process at all (that they know of) and only see and share (display) digitally. Some people capture non-digitally (or have years of non-digital capture already archived as slides, negatives and prints), want to process and print digitally, and expect to display non-digitally a print they can sell and frame and cherish "just like" the prints they get from the local photo lab (which nowadays are digitally processed and printed, also!). Should I edit your "module" pages or will you revisit them with new eyes? Thanks. -- Peter Blaise Peterblaise 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Where are the pictures of digital photography?
Why no illustrations? Isn't photography a visual language? Yeah, I know, if I want something, contribute it! ;-) -- Peter Blaise Peterblaise 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cost Differences
The cost differences between digital and film photography are exaggerated greatly in this article. At a processing cost of roughly $15-$20 USD per roll of 24-exposure film, any serious aspiring photographer that takes a significant number of pictures will quickly find digital photography to be one or two orders of magnitude cheaper than film photography. Yes, the bodies are more expensive, but once the sunk cost of the body is incurred, the cost per photo is drastically lower, regardless of how you compare. If you consider all photos taken, then the cost of keeping digital photos is equal to the proportion of the going rate for hard drive space occupied. If you consider just the "keepers", the difference grows even more stark because all film photographs have to be developed and mounted as slides or printed, even the misses and bad shots. When this cost is amortized over just the keepers, hundreds of thousands of developed photos may have to be taken in order to acquire a single "keeper". In the digital world, just that one keeper would be printed.