By Jonathan Yu

Photography has always seemed to be the “cool” thing to do. Even back in elementary school, photography was cool. I remember going on fields trips in elementary school and seeing my classmates proudly show off their disposable Kodak film cameras.

Ten years later, photography is still cool, but instead of our little disposable Kodaks, we have our little [insert favorite camera brand] digital point-and-shoots. With the advent of digital photography, the photographic fervor has intensified. It seems like people take photographs everywhere—at concerts, during parties in everyday life. From the newsroom to the dorm room to Facebook, digital photography has made its grand entrance and it has brought a ton of good things as well.

Perhaps the most obvious advantage of digital photography is that a photographer can review his or her photos in an instant. It becomes easier to adapt to ambient lighting. It becomes easier to check one’s composition. It becomes infinitely easier to delete an unfavorable image. As a result, the photographer can immediately ensure that the photograph he or she’s captured is consistent with his or her vision. In essence, one has more opportunities to make that perfect picture.

Given that you’re probably reading this in a newspaper, I suppose it’s only fitting that I make the next point—digital photography has improved the productivity of the photojournalist. And if you’re the Associated Press, Reuters or any other major news organization, speed is the name of the game. Gone are the days when photojournalists had to take the time to develop film.

With digital camera technology, a few quick fixes with post-processing software and a little something we call the internet, photos can go live in a matter of minutes. It has gotten to the point where photographers covering big events usually have their photos online just a few minutes after the event has started. And the story told by these digital images is no less than their film predecessors.

Don’t get me wrong. Film photographs tell awesome stories as well (those old Pulitzers were shot on film after all). It’s just that digital photos can deliver the story in an instant—minutes and seconds, not days.

Digital photography puts the “new” back in news.

My aim in writing this has not been to launch a diatribe against film photographers. I have tremendous respect for film photographers, for they possess great technical skills and keen artistic senses—all of which are needed to make a great photograph. But when even the best film photographers begin to switch to digital, what does that say? You tell me.

Related articles

• Head to Head — Print Photographs
• How The Contest Worked
• Civil War Battlefields Come to Bryn Mawr
• “I Know it From a Hymn”: Student Photography Exhibition Opens at Fine Arts Center
• Correction
• Photojournalist shares experience with students
• A Century of Haverford Alumni Photographers
• StaffProfile:
• Paul Strand, photographic pioneer
• Abstract Art Underfoot