That seems to beg the question. The way we communicate, purchase materials, etc. does not change the fundamental processes we use to make images and print photographs. If Cole Weston wants to make reprints of Edward's negatives (as he is entitled to do per Edward’s will), he may order his materials on the Internet, or may drive to a photographic supply store in a car that is controlled by microprocessor technology, but his photos are produced using the same technology that Edward used during his lifetime.(posted 8234 days ago)The current state of affairs with regard to the use of digital technology seems to vary depending on the genre. Digital technology is rapidly making inroads in consumer and commercial photography. Photojournalism is almost 100% digital (digital cameras and digital printing). For those fine art photographers that have ventured into digital, the very best images seem to be produced with traditional cameras and film which are developed, and then scanned on high resolution scanners, and then printed on digital printers.
Medium format film scanners like the Nikon 8000 ED, which have the promise of quality scans previously only available in $10,000 and up drum scanners, seem to be flying off the shelves at $3,000 a pop. A high end B&W digital printing set up (Piezography BW Pro24) costs about $6,000 for the printer and software (not including computer). So digital seems to be making gains, especially in the low-resolution arenas (consumer and photojournalism), but it is still a relatively expensive endeavor if you are trying to match the quality of the traditional B&W fine art photography. But it’s probably not a question of “if,” it’s only a question of “when.”