Yes, Longshadow, it IS the equivalent. The original question was WHY did we change the term? We're doing exactly the same thing, with the only change being the method of storing, so WHY do we call it capture, as a noun, when we didn't used to?

Maybe- I'll see next quarter. There's one for you--quarter. One fourth or to house in quarters.

Ok, thanks for that. I’ll accept that I just never heard it used as a noun before.

Nothing. You?

Thanks for that, Bill. I teach photography at the college level, so I’m aware of its history. And every response I have gotten so far has referred to the word capture as a verb. My question is why have we begun to use it as a noun?

As a verb, yes, you’re right. But as a noun?

Longshadow, I have been involved in photography for roughly 45 years and in my experience, I never heard another photographer refer to a negative, or print as a ‘capture ‘ Not once. That’s all. I’ just wondering why.

Perhaps elitist was not the best word I was looking for. Perhaps I meant more ‘lemming-like ‘. If you have any experience with film photography, did you call your efforts captures back then? Seems to be just a cultural acceptance like ‘Yadda, yadda, yadda’ which came from a TV show.

Thanks for the condescending reply. I do understand the term. My question was a bit deeper: why were our photographic efforts never referred to as ‘captures ‘ before digital.

Does anybody know where the term ‘capture ‘ came from in digital photography? Time was, one found a scene, made an exposure, created a negative, then a print. Now, one finds a scene, makes an exposure, creates a file, and then a print. It all seems a bit elitist and unnecessary to me.

Sometimes digital looks a bit antiseptic to me. And transparency film does have a certain ‘feel ‘to it. I would compare it to the difference between vinyl and an MP3.

My iPhone 6+ went with me to Europe a few years ago and on returning, I hung a show at my local library. Side by side with images from my 5Dmkll, and printed up to about 11x17”, not a single viewer knew the difference. Careful use can yield good results.

Don’t know if I can help completely to answer your question, but Canon had a design problem with an L series lens a few years back; the 24-105 f4 L. Seems they bought a cheap Chinese ribbon wire for the internal workings of the lens. After a couple of years, when the warranty was gone, the lens stopped communicating with the camera, a 5DMKll. I contacted them and they said it would cost a minimum of $700 to disassemble and repair. I decided to turn it into a boat anchor. I’m very invested in Canon over the years and am not happy with them. That was the same lens that, after a trip down into the Grand Canyon, was chock full of dust. On contacting them about why I was shelling out the high price for the ‘sealed and dust resistant ‘lens, we’re talking another $500 to clean it. They have now made the 24-105 f4 series 2 which probably fixes these problems. They would generously off $20 off a new $1100 lens if I liked! I may switch brands. Maybe some of their equipment is too badly made to fix economically and sell as refurbished?

Having used all types and sizes of films in my career, I'd answer that yes, what you see is a result of using color negative film. In terms of sharpness, and in descending order: Color slide film, black and white negative film, color negative film being the worst of the lot. Other answers are correct as well. It's a copy of a copy, perhaps a less than perfect scan, some grain adding to the effect of 'softness'. There are areas, the near rock, that are just plain out of focus-I hope you're not concerned about them.

A bike shop should carry slip on foam handlebar grips. The cushioning helps with the shoulder pain and the added benefit is insulation from the cold in winter. Cheap and effective.