-2

Has anyone proposed Splitting Photography stack into to two different stacks; digital photography and Film photography ? Is it a good idea ? ( i say it is because my brain thought it up all by itself, I think )

Digital would be of coarse all things related to digital photography; equipment, techniques, post processing etc.

Analog would be of coarse all things related to film photography; equipment, techniques, film, developing, printing.

Opinions ?

Bueller, Bueller ?

  • 4
    Where would go discussions on lenses and filters, tripods and heads, lighting and studio equipment, and, above all, general photography (composition, lighting, etc...). – xenoid May 10 '19 at 21:11
  • 3
    Most of the time, Stack Exchange discourages proposing new sites that will fragment/split the current userbase. But for this meta discussion: what are the problems with the current site that you feel the need to split it? – Andrew T. May 11 '19 at 9:59
  • 2
    Is there a purpose behind this Q, or was it just a transient thought you happened to have? – xiota May 15 '19 at 0:44
7

There's a lot more in common between digital photography and analog photography than there is not in common. This is especially the case when things sometimes done using digital cameras when the end goal is not an image are not taken into account. This, using a camera primarily as a measuring device instead of with the primary goal to produce an artistic or documentary image for display is not considered "photography" here.

There's no need to split the site and then duplicate all of the content regarding things such as:

  • Composition
  • Lighting
  • Metering
  • Flash photography
  • Lenses
  • Shooting technique
  • Selecting frames and displaying prints
  • Tripods, camera straps, other accessories, etc.
6

You make a better argument for tags than for different sites. Analog vs Digital photography doesn't change photography on the whole, it changes only a relatively small part. The technical means of developing the image are the only real change. All of the artistic portions(concept, not technique), the ideas behind the development of the image, the mechanics of the camera itself are all more or less identical or extremely similar between the two.

To use a different example, this would be a bit like suggesting that a Cars Q/A should be split in to Manual Transmission and Automatic Transmission sites. Yes, there are some functional differences between them in some areas, but they are still both fundamentally cars and the vast majority of things in the field are relevant to both.

-1

If at all, making the divide between photography and image editing/publication would make far more sense.... and maybe giving up the photo/video split instead, given that there are very few contemporary dedicated still and video cameras and accessories left at the end of 2019. Dividing between "stuff done in the field with cameras, lights and lenses" and "stuff done indoors with full sized computers" seems to slowly make more sense...

And, just a personal opinion, I do not think questions about optics theory or machine vision camera-side equipment should be off topic - there seems to be value in some (especially surplus) machine vision gear for pictorial photography and videography, so keeping that world nearby might ultimately be beneficial.

  • Agreed. And a lot of the "stuff done indoors with full sized computers" already happens in GraphicDesign, even if it"s considered a bit off-topic by some. – xenoid Dec 26 '19 at 10:57
  • 2
    I'm definitely not interested in filmmaking (or making family home videos). Can you find some examples of questions on the video site which we would currently consider off topic but which would actually build a better photography community here? I'm afraid that it'd just lead to more questions about the technical capabilities and features of particular gear. – Please Read Profile Dec 26 '19 at 22:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .