Do Digital Photos Threaten The Past?
from the not-really dept
Someone actually wrote their degree dissertation on the historical impact of digital photography. Her argument appears to be that thanks to digital photography, more images will get deleted on the spot, since the photographer can make the decision to keep or discard right away. In "destroying" those images, we are likely to lose some important element of history. There are a bunch of problems with this argument, which assume that digital camera storage won't just get larger and larger, or easier to carry around. If anything, I would think that digital photography makes it easier to capture more and better images of historical events, since you can see right away what you got and what you missed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Neither better nor worse, just different.
So the author has a good point that the instant review and delete capabilities of digital cameras may mean that we'll miss some opportunity to uncover unintentionally captured items of historical significance later, but weighing against this is the improved ability to record a good photo of the subject you're intending to shoot. In the end, there will be as many (probably more) raw pictures for the historians to comb through; they'll just be ones where the subject is in focus with his eyes open. And when something really significant is captured, people will save it anyway. Does anyone think that Abraham Zapruder would have erased his movie after reviewing it because he though the camera shook too much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]