Some Observations on the Digital Revolution

Please don't knock this off because of the word 'digital' or 'digital revolution'... I think this is an important topic for analog photography and needs to be addressed. So just hear me out for a minute here...

The major point:

I'm becoming fairly conscious now (or is it paranoid) that people in general (even film users) are becoming quite immune to the lure of the finely crafted large format photograph... especially where things like resolution, acuity and let's say 'the quality of the fine print' (loaded though that phrase is!). For example - I've seen some really excellent huge prints from 8x10 negs recently - that were clearly analog/analog that were kind of mindblowing 'on paper'... but only when I really sat and studied it or revisited it... most people responded to only the image content.

So - it seems to me that maybe 10 or 15 years ago this would definitely NOT have been the case! It would be a mindblowing photograph, technically speaking at least. But now since the various QUALITIES which go into making a well made gelatin silver print are not applicable when consuming the ever-ubiquitous web image... these are critical tools which have all but dropped off the map. I mean - even I'M starting to look at things in the same way...! It's all become very LCD (lowest common denominator).

I suppose this is just a wind of change... (but you would THINK that seeing something well made like that would be really refreshing...!) - I suppose it's possible that it will force everyone to concentrate on image content. Which is a good thing (trying to be positive here) - but I was just wondering what others thought of this - and if there might be anything to this - or if anyone had any reflections on it.

Another Observation:
I've noticed another really interesting aspect of the 'digikids' progress shooting digital... having had a number of friends/acquaintances who had only recently picked up a camera for the first time - it's quite surprising how quickly people seem to develop a fairly solid eye... it's shocking really. I SUSPECT this is due to the more or less immediate feedback of the digicam, and the ability to shoot copious loads of photos with impunity. It's kind of a nice benefit that we never got trudging around with our big cameras in the muck...

anyway...
there you have it.

I think that what is happening in photography is quite a natural progression of the art/craft. The total perception of a print (subject matter, composition, visual appeal, technique, etc.) has always been culturally based and has always changed along with the greater socio-cultural changes among both artists and their audiences. You might be right that it is the digital medium that has accelerated such changes recently, but there really is nothing unusual about this process, except, perhaps, for an increased consumer involvement in photography due to aggressive marketing of digital photographic tools. I very much doubt that most audiences really care about the craft involved in creating a photograph that appeals to them.

The situation is analogous to what happened in popular music during the digital transition. Virtually, any middle-class kid can own (and many do) a digital instrument and/or software that lets them create music with surprising ease. However, have we really seen a proliferation of superb music lately? I do not think so. The changes that we have seen have more to do with how music is marketed and sold these days, rather than the ease with which it can be created.

aparat

Interesting topic. It reminds me of the editorial that ran in _LensWork_ a couple of issues ago that discussed the gap between how most people look at photographs and how photographers seem to expect their photographs to *be* looked at---so who is our audience anyway?

My gut feeling is that this isn't necessarily different in kind from the gradual drift to smaller formats; plenty of people have complained over the years that eyes accustomed to 35mm fail to appreciate fine large-format work, and so on. Those people are probably somewhat right, and the equivalent complaint about digital changing the perception of film probably has a reasonable basis too...

aparat said:

The situation is analogous to what happened in popular music during the digital transition. Virtually, any middle-class kid can own (and many do) a digital instrument and/or software that lets them create music with surprising ease. However, have we really seen a proliferation of superb music lately? I do not think so.

Click to expand...

Oh, I do. I hear lots of really superb music produced by amateurs (and by semi-pros who are getting paid but not making a living---little local bands and so on), and I think that's a direct result of the wider availability of musical technology---digital recording facilities as well as digital instruments per se. Much of that music is "amateurish" in that it isn't highly polished, highly produced, or a technical showcase; personally, I like that aspect---remembering as always that the root of "amateur" means "love". I'd much rather hear the work of a technically marginal musician whose love for the art comes through than that of a consummate professional who's phoning in their performance. And many of the amateurs *aren't* technically marginal, they just haven't chosen to make their art a full-time job for whatever reason.

Moreover, I think that analysis pushes right through to photography: I see lots of images that have something special about them, taken by "amateurs" in both senses of the word, on both film and digital. The availability of digital technologies (scanning as well as digital cameras per se) means that there are a lot more of these people showing off their work; I think that's great, because it drastically expands the universe of images that are out there to look at.

That doesn't speak to what's special about a gelatin silver print, much as the musical version doesn't speak to what's special about the sound of a Stradivarius in hands that are as good as the instrument. But those things are still out there to enjoy; they just live in a more complicated artistic landscape. At the end of the day, I think that "artistic biodiversity" is a Good Thing.

-NT

Digital didn't do it. TV did it.

Interesting thoughts. If we look at the Joe Public photographer we see a person who 60 years ago had a simple box brownie and over time graduated to an automatic everything compact and has now moved to an automatic everything digital camera. He has never wanted anything other than instant success. It was just that years ago success was harder to come by. These days not only does he avoid the expense of many rolls of film to get one or two good pictures, he further avoids the expense of processing by simply transferring the pics onto his TV screen where even lousy pics look " reasonable". Alternatively he has in his digi camera the equivalent of an instant slide viewer with him in the form of his 2.5 inch vdu and which he passes round his friends to let them see the pics. It's the equivalent of the slide taker passing round his slides on a small slide viewer in the cafe, bar etc At this size on the camera VDU or much larger on a TV screen he has reasonable shots which might not pass muster as prints but who cares? Very few of his friends is what I believe. Technology has formed their outlook

He still has the chance to print the odd one or two if they are real keepers. Formerly Joe Public had to go to the expense of having all shots printed then the good ones enlarged. Much more expensive. People will sacrifice quality for quantity, especially if the price is right and replacement is cheap.

The hobbyists enjoy the effort of producing good pictures and so do commercial photographers but this is incidental to them as they need good pics in order to make a living. Some and only some professionals need an eye for a picture but many others are in professional spheres where this matters little compared to producing a competent shot. If the digi camera can do this more quickly and cheaply than the analogue then it's no contest.

Imagine a situation in which AA, as he is starting out, is siddently competing against a digital world with his 8x10. Would he be able to make a living as a photographer? He might still have been the father of the zone system but would this accomplishment have been noticed? Would there have been enough interest in his famous three books to make publishing them worthwhile? What would we the photographing public know of AA?

The essential difference is that photographers had to know a lot then, in the broadest technical sense of the word to be even passable photographers but not now. All of the consequences of the "new photography" has an effect on photographers' qualities.

If in the first days of cars, they had come complete with reliable automatic gearboxes would a manual box have ever been seen? There might have been joy in learning and mastering clutch control, double de-clutching and choosing the right gear for the conditions facing the driver but this appealed to so few of the motoring public that even many years ago almost all U.S. cars had automatic gearboxes.

True hobbyists have always been in the minority, even in the hey day of film but at least then film was the only game in town and the analogue photographer had all the materials and skills database to draw on, if he wanted to. Unfortunately these two bases of material and knowledge are shrinking like manual gearboxes in 1950s America. The best we can hope for is that this niche market will appeal to enough hobbyists to maintain a critical mass for its survival.

My twopenny worth

pentaxuser