The act of processing film (&paper) is falling away from the shared experience of photographers. The profession has dropped chemistry quickly, though amateurs and some students learn and practice it, and probably will in dwindling numbers for another generation. Then it will be gone until some future rediscovery.

The object of photography is now an image without being an object. It is a representation only. This change should probably have a different name for the maker, even a different verb for the action. It seems to have a community shared verb — “capture.” Yet the name for the maker remains photography or else a complex “digital photographer.” It is time to grant both courses their own word by giving those who “capture” the name “digitographer.”

This may clear the kitchen of too many idle cooks and keep the soup clean.

In just yesterday’s little scouting session I shot 60 clicks. And would have kept the camera loaded if I hadn’t checked. That’s part of the IT of digital. Part that is different from film.

In film world, I’d have 2-5 rolls of film, or 3 boxes of sheet film to process. The drudgery of the chemical procedures require that they always be attended to, like dusting, but more diligently. As though you were cleaning, forever, or painting a bridge, forever.

With digital, it is more like filing. You upload to keep projects organized and coherent.

In thinking about these two modes, I realize that large format (sheet film shooters) don’t have to do the chemical as often as roll filmers. This means that, in a sense, they are akin to digital workers. But with stinky fingers.