photo & technology 26 Mar 2008 08:15 am
Some thoughts on Digital
“I don’t like explosions. I don’t mind progress. But digital photography has made every man, woman, child and chimpanzee a photographer of sorts and consequently has numbed down the general quality of photographs.”Of course digital photography is essential for economy and for speedy results (news - fashion photography - advertising and the like) but it also is too damned easy and doubtful for archiving as technology and conservation methods always change. Silver halide is still the most reliable material but regretfully on the way out.”
I saw this photo of Eliott Erwitt on The Online Photographer a while ago.
I consider Erwitt to be a master photographer. I think the shirt is hyperbolic, but his words above ring somewhat true with me. But I think the idea that photography has a general quality that is subject to being numbed down is flawed. Recently, also on The Online Photographer, Mike Johnston said this:
Show me an artist who doesn’t loathe or dismiss whole categories of artistic endeavor and I’ll show you an artist who isn’t committed to his own art.
It made me think about Erwitt’s position in a different light.
This interview with Ralph Gibson has some interesting thoughts on digital as well. Ralph is still a film guy, through and through. But it sounds like he keeps up on digital things and uses them a lot when appropriate. That’s what I appreciate about his take on digital: it’s not fanatical. Not that I don’t have a certain amount of respect for the fanatics.
Ralph:
Ralph: I have. And I’ve gone to InkjetMall.com (Cone Editions). I’m pretty much abreast of what’s going on. And I have used those inks, and they’re great. It’s just that they’re not better or worse than photographs. They coexist. They’re not photographs. They’re another kind of very beautiful print.
The whole interview is worth reading. I have an immense amount of respect for Mr. Gibson. I saw a number of photographs last year.
As for me, I got back into photography because of digital. The low cost per photograph allowed me to shoot a lot and learn quickly. Though the last camera I bought was a film rangefinder, which I love.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 5:39 pm 1.bon bon said …
mr. erwitt’s comments reminds me of a phrase i’ve heard fairly recently; it’s not the arrow, it’s the indian.
you do a damn fine job of hitting your mark, chris.
on 26 Aug 2008 at 2:22 pm 2.Nataraj Hauser / eyeDance said …
While I tend to agree with the sentiment about digital manipulation, I have some devil’s advocate thoughts. First let me say that I am a fledgling photographer who is ONLY improving because I can shoot and shoot with my digital camera, allowing me to make all sorts of mistakes and see what the result is. I doubt I’ll ever aspire to be a professional in the strict sense of the word (that is, earning my pay as a photographer). My approach as a student of photography is to maximize my ability with the camera, doing everything I can to get the shot right. I do not own, nor do I want to own Photoshop or the like. I do some minor tweaks (exposure, color, contrast, crop, straighten) with iPhoto, and not much of that. Which brings me to my devil’s advocacy.
How is Photoshop conceptually different from darkroom manipulation? Dodging, burning, and even paper selection (and so many more tweaks and gimmicks) are possible in the darkroom. Is someone like Ansel Adams less of a photographer because he finished crafting his images in the darkroom? My instinctive reaction is to agree with your, and Erwitt’s sentiment, but admit I am conflicted as to WHY I agree with you.
on 29 Aug 2008 at 5:51 pm 3.chris said …
I’m not sure I agree with Erwitt’s statement. Actually, I’m pretty sure that I don’t! I’ve argued both sides before. And I’ve thought about Photoshop/darkroom before and I think the main difference is that PS makes so much possible so easily. There’s very little penalty for trying something 3000 different ways. And in that abundance of choice lies the possibility of being and endless experimenter who never fully explores one style. An artist whose work doesn’t build on its past but instead flits about laterally. Having these endless digital processing possibilities can lead to the same problem that being able to take thousands of photos without cost does: you increase your burden as an editor, as a decider of which path works best for you.
But I don’t believe that necessarily. :) The last photo up there is my own skin’s ode to digital technology. So whose statement do you agree with now?