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 ?

  • 3
    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 at 21:11
  • 2
    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 at 9:59
  • Is there a purpose behind this Q, or was it just a transient thought you happened to have? – xiota May 15 at 0:44

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.

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.

You must log in to answer this question.

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