The OP wrote that he is interested in in the artistic and scientific aspect of digital photography.

Bill furnished him with many essential scientific facts about digital imagining technology. There were also other great explanations. I decided to write more about the aesthetics and the more practical day-to-day usage of digital equipment and how it relates to analog methodologies based on my own transition. All in all, the OP is well served. He is a knowledgeable experienced individual and will process the information. I look forward to his feedback.

I can't fathom why there always has to be all of the infighting. Each of us shod be able to take pleasure in their photography with whatever approach and equipment they prefer and should not be criticized for there choices- old school, film, analog or the latest up-to-date technologies.

There is a place and user for all photographic devices and camera types. Obviously, a cell phone can't replace an advanced DSLR or a mirrorless camera but it suffices for some folks who simply enjoy taking pictures with a minimum of fuss. You can't slip a DSLR in your shirt pocket and use it spontaneously whenever the occasion arises nor can you carry out a difficult or challenging professional level assignment with a cell phone. I personally think that smartphone cameras have proliferated the daily use of photography as an accessible communications tool and folks are making better quality snapshots than ever before. Perhaps it turns a lot of folks onto more advanced photography and sophisticated cameras. I also feel that there is probably a lot of cross pollination between camera big and small and much have been learned about miniaturization, compact design, and circuitry that is being applied to more advanced cameras. Leica is making optics for phone cameras- what does that tell you?

I also feel that a person that is starting out in digital photography or transitioning from the older technologies should not be discouraged my a mountain of high-tech information. A decent camera and a basic zoom lens is a good start. Perhaps we forget that the camera is very self-contained and produces instant gratification or disappointment- both great learning tools. There is no waiting for the processing of film and no need for a computer or an editing program at the very beginning of the experience. Once the new digital photographer is fully acquainted and familiar with his camera, a basic editing platform is a next step. Practice makes perfect, or at least acceptable results and all the rest of the peripheral items can follow. Getting there is half the fun. Building a system is a great experience.

Good morning! Sorry to be getting into your discussion so late, but I have redirected my "interactive" energy around photography toward investing in young people (both students and teachers) at the local STEAM high school where I am a substitute teacher for 90-100 days per year. I now only visit here once or twice a week for a few minutes.

As background, I'm a retired educator (physics and mathematics) and engineer who has been doing photographic documentation (from snapshots to job-related work) for close to 60 years. After returning from a trip to Germany and Austria in 1990 and being disappointed with my trip photos, I began enrolling in photography classes at my local college to learn more about the history, art, and science of photography. I switched completely to digital (which I now prefer to call silicon-based) photography in 2006. Apart from a few rolls of film shot several years ago for a couple of projects at work, I have not used film since making that switch.

You have already received several replies above. Those from Mr. Burkholder and Mr. Shapiro are particularly valuable and helpful in answering your questions. I'd just add a couple of comments to expand a bit on what they have said and maybe provide a bit wider context field.

First...there is really zero significant fundamental difference between silver-based photography and silicon-based photography. Both of them simply involve capturing a well-focused image on a sensing medium, then controlling exposure so that the proper number of photons interact with the medium to create a properly exposed "image." In fact, the only difference of any importance is that many (or even most) photographers today consider sensor sensitivity an exposure "variable." There are two key pieces of this difference. The first is that, with the exception of sheet film cameras, once a roll of film was loaded, the photographer was committed to a given film speed until that roll of film was used. (Of course, processing decisions could be made about individual exposures when sheet film was used.) The second is that silicon-based cameras, especially the newer ones, offer a dizzying range of ISO-equivalent exposure indices. (The first digital camera I used only offered a range from ISO 100-ISO 400, as I recall. My most current camera goes all the way to ISO 64,000) Exposure indices that most photographers could only dream about are now routinely available to almost everyone.

Second...the technology around capture, processing, and printing of silicon-based images is incredibly advanced and complex. And that complexity involves numerous disciplines.

As a "hardware" person myself, I can understand and appreciate your desire to "understand it all." I wish you well as you move in that direction. My suggestion, though, is that an immersive approach may or may not be ideal, given the point to which photographic systems have been developed already. And if you decide that it is, you are going to need to build a very robust respiratory support system to prevent drowning. You might want to consider instead an incremental approach...focusing primarily on one area at a time.

You will find the group here to be very much centered around shooting. You will also find them to be very much geared around post-processing every image. I do not support starting out that way, especially if you want to learn how the pieces of the systems work together to capture images. My suggestion is not to begin with raw images, either. Fine/Large JPEG or TIFF images will be much more helpful in seeing how the various parts of the camera system work together to capture your images, because you will be able to view unambiguously the results of the various choices you make at exposure. In fact, using JPEG will require you to target your exposure choices carefully, because there will be less room for error. The narrow latitude will actually help you see the effects of suboptimal choices or missed exposure combinations.

There are some differences in how you will want to meter. Film allowed the option of protecting highlights in order to capture shadow detail by choosing alternative development processes. Digital images have no headroom at all, just like digital audio on a CD. You cannot recover highlights once they are lost. But much shadow detail can be recovered if images are captured with sufficient bit depth. Post processing allows that (along with a lot of other wizardry), but I'd absolutely not worry about that at the start. Plenty of time for it later.

Photography is very much a lab class. Reading can be helpful, but putting what you learn into practice is a requirement. Understanding effects on either side of "ideal" is fundamental to being able to create the best results. Systems are so good today that "almost correct" can appear deceptively on-target.

So best wishes on your journey. Your background and history tell me that you will do fine and probably become one of the strongest experts here. Take a deep breath. Focus on the facts. Avoid "lore" and institutionalized misconception and error. Mostly...have fun and remember that you eat an elephant one bite at a time.