Due to the enormous development of computer technology and electronics, more and more people have the opportunity to get their hands on a camera or gadget with the function of taking pictures. However, the availability of the devices themselves is by no means a guarantee of their successful use. For this reason, users have a lot of legitimate questions that they themselves are unable to answer.

Among these questions, one of the most frequently asked is the following: which is better, digital or analog photography. The question would seem to be simple and single-issue - either one or the other. However, in fact, everything is not as simple as it seems at first glance. Below you will find various statements that are directly or indirectly related to the answer to this question, and allow you to get an idea not only of the depth of the problem itself, but also of the initial reasons for various fallacies.

Also, in order to make the discussion clear we will use a method that is very colorful to illustrate the hidden sides of less known topics - namely, we will reason according to the principle of analogy. In our case we will draw a parallel between photoengineering and the sphere of construction, which is usually more familiar to an average person. This is what would happen if an architect, blindly convinced of the superiority of analogue photography, were to express the statements of a photographer in his own language.

Photographer: I think a photographer should be able to shoot everything. Architect: I think a builder should be able to build anything.

Photographer: I like to do everything with my hands. Architect: I like to do everything with my hands.

Photographer: I think a photographer should be able to shoot and print his photos. Architect: I think a builder should be able to design and build his structures.

Photographer: I think the use of digital technology kills the soul of photography. Architect: I think the use of electricity in buildings kills the soul in them.

Photographer: I believe that computer processing and digitally oriented print materials in photography kill the truth in it. Architect: I believe that computer design and the use of modern artificial materials kill the truth in a structure.

Photographer: Photography with Photoshop and visual effects is not real. Architect: A building with electricity and central heating is not real.

Photographer: Photoshop is too complicated and unnecessary. Architect: Designing on a computer is too complicated and unnecessary.

Photographer: I think it's better to use old tried-and-true technology and photographic materials - namely a mechanical camera with film or plates. Architect: I think it is better to use time-honored technology and materials - namely, to build huts out of brushwood and heat them with wood or dung.

Photographer: Analog photography has its own unique, "vintage" spirit. Architect: An ancient hut has its own unique, "vintage" spirit inside.

Photographer: Why use digital when the old film camera gives you everything you need. Architect: Why build a skyscraper when you can live in a hut.

Photographer: Digital photography is too expensive, it's better to use old technology. Architect: Building a skyscraper is too expensive, it's better to build a hut.

Photographer: It's better to shoot with a mechanical camera. Architect: It's better to drill holes with a bow drill.

Photographer: To photograph the moment, you don't have to think about the shot in advance. I'm all for spontaneity. Architect: To build a cabin for one season, you don't have to think about the design in advance. I'm a sucker punch.

Photographer: The staging of a photograph kills the "life" in it. Architect: Consistent design before building a house kills the "life" in it.

Photographer: You don't have to learn photography - you either know how to shoot it or you don't. I learned everything myself. Architect: You don't have to learn how to build - you either can or you can't. I learned everything myself.

As you have already realized, this kind of comparison, which gives a clear picture of a number of common misconceptions, can go on indefinitely. Of course some would argue that comparing photography and the construction of a building is not quite fair, since the latter requires more knowledge and effort on the part of specialists. However, the one who voices the corresponding statement will be the one who has a very poor understanding of the degree of development of modern photographic production and the theory of photographic art.

Unfortunately, it has to be stated that the mutual dislike between supporters of analog and digital photography in most cases is of an ideological confrontation that boils down to "questions of faith" rather than to the objective advantages or disadvantages of the technologies themselves. In other words, the dispute is analogous to the feud between the pointy-headed and the pointy-eyed people in Gulliver's Travels, who could not agree on which side to eat a boiled egg. Both sides in both cases are prone to make only those arguments that support only their point of view, seeking to conceal the true reasons for their "political" loyalty. As for the true reasons for this fanatical conviction, they have already been voiced in a previous article, which was devoted to the background to the life and way of thinking of Ivan Ivanovich, the main protagonist-stander of our narrative.

If we take this endless debate aside, it is surprisingly clear that the main parameter that is most often missing from this debate is the function that the final work will fulfill. After all, what ultimately matters is not how the artist reaches his or her goal, but whether or not the result of his or her efforts corresponds to the task at hand. As you can easily guess, this function is by no means a constant value that is universal for all photographic projects. Its appearance can differ diametrically depending on the creative views of the photographer, the interests of the client or the cultural specifics of the local region, not to mention the fact that these views, interests and cultural specifics change rapidly over time, and not only from epoch to epoch, but even within a calendar year. Each individual situation requires its own special solution, and there is simply no single recipe for success. And therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to compare the characteristics of tools designed for fundamentally different functions. Because it is just as senseless to make a technical comparison between a kitchen knife, a medical scalpel or a combat dagger - because their functional use is too different. Yes, all these tools can be used not for their intended purpose, but then you should be prepared for the fact that the result of such actions will be unsatisfactory as well.

Does all of this mean that analog photography has no future in today's world? Of course not. Yes, the needs of the customer and the audience have changed so much that analog technology is much less likely to meet the parameters of those needs. However, the tool itself is not "bad" or "good" - because, as we've already found out, what matters first and foremost is what it's used for and how it's used. Simply a number of the expectations of customers, art critics, and artists themselves, who have an understanding of contemporary popular culture, visual theory or current artistic trends, are already "poorly" or not at all provided by analog means and by a single author. In other words, many consumers no longer want to live in shacks, and the modern high-rise buildings with luxury lofts they need are very difficult or even impossible to build alone from wood or clay and only with primitive tools. Does this mean that no one needs the huts - not at all. After all, there is interest in ecotourism, in historical staging, in decorating entertainment events, in decorations in movies and computer games, as well as many other areas where "old" methods are still in demand, and modern, special and no less high-tech equipment is created to support them. It is only necessary to improve your creative skills and choose the right tool.

Artem Loginov