As you'll read elsewhere on this month's site, Digital Tools are being used by an increasing number of photographers for an ever-expanding range of purposes. The growing digital presence at PMA, the country's largest photography trade show, has lost its shock value. While digital remains "the new kid on the block," it's possible for us to start to put these new tools into perspective.

This month, Bernard J Suess offers his opinions on the balance between digital and traditional photography. While we didn't discuss his thesis with him before he submitted this article, his thoughts are exactly in line with most of the staff at NYI/photocourses.com: Digital photography is another form of the photographic medium, and a background in traditional photography will allow you to go further, faster, in the digital realm. We're pleased to present this thought-provoking essay.

A revolution is taking place in photography. Perhaps you're already a part of it, or maybe you're unsure of what to do. Certainly many people believe that traditional photography is dying. "Digital photography is the wave of the future," we're being told. That might be true. But does that mean traditional photography is dead? There are no easy answers. We'll consider some of the possibilities, which should clarify the issues. Then you can make a qualified decision.

Is digital photography better than conventional photography? Not necessarily. While the two are similar – digital photography certainly grew out of conventional – they are not usually interchangeable and are in fact, different ways of doing similar tasks. Each has its own advantages and liabilities.

The latest digital cameras can capture 4-megapixels or more, resulting in 11-megabyte files. The results are darn good. Output as a 5x7 print, most photographers would be happy. That's the operating word-most. For those of us who have been practicing traditional photography for decades, digital cameras aren't quite up to speed yet. I have nothing against digital photography. I use it where it makes sense. But for much of my work, I don't see digital replacing traditional photography very soon. Despite working in digital photography extensively for the past six years, I'd still rate my darkroom skills and the control they allow me to be much higher than what I'm capable of on the computer.

In fact, I see digital photography and traditional photography as complementary arts. The skills acquired in doing traditional photography will surely pass over into the digital realm. With my students, I've found that teaching basic concepts like depth of field, selective focus, stopping and showing motion, contrast, and exposure is easiest with manual cameras using film. There are enough things to learn (f/stop, shutter speed, ISO, and more) without adding to the burden by needing to learn digital concepts.

In addition, traditional photography is still an easy and convenient way to make and store high resolution images. Though we don't usually think of them that way, black-and-white and color 35mm negatives or slides contain a lot of image information. A good high-resolution scan from a 35mm negative can easily top 70 megabytes. There are no affordable cameras that can match that. Trying to crop a typical 2- or 3-megapixel camera image is also a problem. The "hi-res" 35mm negative can be cropped considerably before the quality becomes unacceptable.

A potential problem with digital photographs is their archival quality. Many digital prints fade rather quickly. Though this is improving, few digital images will have the longevity of traditional photographs. This is true of color, but even more so with black-and-white photos which can last well over two hundred years. A counter-argument is that digital photos can be easily reprinted at any time and that's true-for the short term. Depending how the digital image is stored, there is no certainty that computers in the future will be able to easily access them (anyone remember 5 1/4 inch floppy disks?).

It's always been interesting to me to see what people could do with digital photography to make it work in a seamless way. That is, the technique itself would be secondary to the image and would be almost invisible. Instead of drawing attention to how the photo was done, we should be asking ourselves why and what. Digital photography that is fantastic (men with wings flying in green skies) is actually easier than the everyday type of photos that most people want to create ("Why doesn't Aunt Martha look right in this photo?"). Without a good understanding of how light quality needs to be matched, and how contrast and brightness changes with distance, there's little chance that purposely (and artistically) composited photos will have the results their creators intend. My wife, who is the snapshooter of the family, can look at these photos and know that something is wrong. Usually I have to explain ("The light is coming from a different direction on that subject.") before she knows what is wrong, but in her gut she knows it doesn't look right.

One photo, a full page spread, purported to portray a skater in a major metropolitan area. The problem was that the skater - positioned in the middle ground - was not as sharp as the foreground or the background. Even beginning photographers know that if the foreground is sharp and the background is sharp (that is, the photo has an extended depth of field) everything between must be sharp, too. While an argument could be made that the photographer (digital compositor, in this case) meant for the lack of sharpness to represent the blur of motion, most photographers would recognize the difference between out of focus and motion blur. I know I noticed it as soon as I turned the page. Obviously, whoever used the photo did not see this faux pas as a problem, or more likely, didn't realize it was a problem at all. It's one reason I strongly suggest that anyone dealing with the visual arts have a basic understanding of photography. Having developed a "film" aesthetic, I also understand that just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be.

Most digital images still start out on traditional media, i.e., as film or a print that is scanned before being adjusted or manipulated on the computer. Few would argue that scanned images are better if the source material is good. It's probably not surprising, though, that people who are not photographers think that any bad image can be turned into something great on the computer. There are times that vast improvements can be made to a poor photograph, but it's also true that the final results will be much stronger if the original image is not somehow deficient.

Of course, since most imaging programs (such as Adobe Photoshop) were written by or for photographers, their tools reflect traditional darkroom tools. I once had a student who was taking a basic photography course after working with Photoshop for some time. One day, after a lecture he came up to me and said, "I want to thank you for explaining what dodging and burning are. I've been using the tools in Photoshop, but I wasn't really sure what they were supposed to do." Other concepts, such as contrast and gamma, are also easier to learn in the darkroom than on the computer. Though you might have finer control on the computer-it's great to be able to zoom in and control the exact size of the adjustment - not understanding what it is you're controlling is a considerable disadvantage. The "Curves" dialog box is a complete mystery to someone who has never learned about the characteristics curves of film.

I've found that having a basic understanding of color relationships, the kind that you would learn in a color darkroom, is another advantage. By learning to fine-tune color photos, you will also have a better idea how to balance and correct your digital images. Knowing that magenta and green are complementary (opposite) colors wouldn't seem to be very useful, but it is when trying to color correct an image. It's even more useful when you realize that there can be different color balances in shadow, midtone, and highlight areas. Many people who start in digital photography, forsaking the traditional route, find it hard to grasp what these three areas are and what they really mean.

Another issue rarely explored is the immediacy of digital photography. There are times when instantaneous results are counterproductive. Imagine working as a photojournalist and having the picture editor or, worse, the subject reviewing every image you make. Think of how this could impact your ability to get unposed images. What would happen to your point of view, the thing that good photojournalists usually market? Instead of having high and low points on a contact sheet, everything would be leveled out. Your worst photos wouldn't be so bad, but your best images wouldn't be much better. While immediate results might be beneficial to a commercial photographer and an art director, in many cases it becomes a distraction from photography.

There are some things that are easier to do digitally-compositing images being one. If your final use will be digital, especially low-resolution images like web or multimedia graphics, starting with a digital camera can make sense. Using a digital camera means you won't need to process or scan images. Even so, understanding how images work in traditional photography will supplement your digital skills. Though it may be possible to learn all these concepts using pure digital - cameras and programs, in my experience those who learn with traditional cameras first have a more complete understanding and can go farther with digital.