I have had brief email conversations with Jörg M. Colberg, who writes the wonderful blog Conscientious, about the slickness of current digital photography. I think Alec Soth described this same characteristic as “frozen perfection” on his blog. Colberg will tell you he doesn’t care about the slickness, just whether or not he likes the end result (he also doesn’t put much weight into process); Soth on the other hand seems to like process at times, and admits to even being frustrated by sterility in his own work. All this is simply an appeal to authority to say that current photographic art is overly slick, devoid of any imperfection, no film grain, no dust spots, etc.
In case you thought this was going to be an insightful post on the state of modern photography, let me warn you, it is about to turn egocentric. I am continually re-evaluating my work, thinking about whether or not it fits in with the larger body of work, wondering if it has any continuity with some grand zeitgeist of photography. Most of the time I decide it fits in with my work, I just might have to toss out a year or so of “marketable-work” to make it seem like it has continuity. But rarely if ever do I feel like I fit in with some spirit of modern photography. I keep up with modern work, often I see other photographers work which inspires me or simply gives me a new idea, so it is not that I am working in a vacuum. Then again, perhaps I am too close to my own images to see properly how they might fit in to a grander scheme. Or maybe they just don’t fit and I shouldn’t worry about it.
Here’s my question: if it’s too slick–certainly a problem–why not abandon the process entirely? Return to a “purer” form of photography filled with error and grain?
I’m stuck on purer. What makes a pure photo? The most accurate recording of reflected light for the time during which the shutter is open? What about non-visible spectrum? Is infra red pure? Should I not shoot with any kodak vs films because of their unrealistic (and possible therefore non-pure) saturation of colors? What about zone system processing . . . it really alters what the film records to make it match the artist’s/photographer’s vision . . . is that pure?
I assume you think photoshop-ing an image makes it less pure, or is it just the digital capture? . . . no wait, what if it is like occam’s razor, and the simplest method is the purest . . . so then the camera obscura is pure, and anything that attempts to record a specified time frame of light is impure!
So, what do you really mean by “purer”?
As much as you strawpersoned it, I don’t disagree! We’re really having a battle over forms (which I can’t wait for Hud to weigh in on). It depends on what we think a “camera” or a “photograph” is supposed to “be.” If one’s perception of the ultimate form of a camera is “the ability to record visual information flawlessly,” then I think modern/digital is certainly the way to go.
However, I may be stuck in an intellectual cul-de-sac over the “best” form of photography. Perhaps due to the elaborate limitations on the technology when it appeared, I view photography as less about capturing a “perfect” image then one dually limited (or informed by) 1. the technology and 2. the internal artistic vision of the photographer. Because I purposely limit #1 in my life, by using only older technology, I am more concerned about #2 (which, because I am limited in my range of reproduction, is similarly narrowed).
In modern-day photography, much of the restrictions of #1 has been eliminated; the camera is able to “record” more now than ever before. I often think of your “Hassy Edges” when I think of how a comforting “analog” edge can be imparted to a digital form, both to fulfill #2 (the photographer’s internal vision) and perhaps calm a suspicious viewer into recognizing the image within a larger tradition, much like faux tape hiss on modern-day studio recordings. In other words, one can create “noise” to replicate the look of analog if one desires. But it becomes shadowplay, then, and thus–in the eyes of many, perhaps myself–no longer “real.”
Yet on that same theme, if modern digital-based mechanisms–including cameras and editing software–allow a photographer to more closely reproduce their artistic ideal, then I should praise them–any notions of “realness” aside. Soth, then, can be viewed as not really complaining about the digital genre per se, but rather at its ability to reproduce his internal artistic vision in the same manner analog equipment allowed.
I think I just talked myself into liking digital because it may allow the creation of more art, different forms of art not previously achievable because of technology limitations, or allow an artist to more closely pursue their internal vision. That being said, it is certainly not for me–but then, it offers me nothing that I desire.
I’m not entire sure that I know what is at stake or what the positions are so far.
I’m also not sure that “overly slick” is a criticism of the technology so much as how its being used; I find myself doing things to digital images that I would not have done to film ones (like I have really been blowing out the contrast recently and amping up the saturation. I have fields of white in my pictures these days). Certainly contemporary pictures are crisper than they ever have been before but crisper is a good thing, isn’t it? Do you want a crappier lens? (for artistic reasons sure, for a specific effect sure, but generally?) The slickness seems to be in the presentation, not in the picture. I remember photographs from the 80’s (prior to digital), mostly National Geographic stuff, which are easily as crisp, clear, and smooth as modern photographs.
Wah could speak to this better, but as I recall there was a movement in painting that aimed at hyper-realism, which effectively died when photographs came into existence (or maybe it was that because of cameras photographic realism came into existence). The point is, technology changes and art changes with it. Complaining that modern cameras are too slick is really just saying “I don’t like change.” And while I have myself been drawn towards the “pure” form I always end up remembering that what I really like is the comfort of a system that I fully understand.
If the concern is really one of process then the question is slightly different. Gorjus, you love the medium of old polaroids. But I suspect that what you like is the uncertainty, the happy accidents. Old processes are harder to control. Even though Adams basically mastered the process there was still a lot out of his control. Modern photography on the other hand, while in many ways is more out of our control, is far more stable. All the technology needed to keep and store information electronically also ends up stabilizing the process of photography. But, I don’t think that means that there isn’t room for manipulation. Certainly photoshop allows all kinds of manipulation but, honestly, we can tell when someone is a filter-pony and when someone is truly using the technology in ways that are interesting and neat. But what I really meant was that there are limitations and strange responses from CCD’s that aren’t present in film.
For instance, in film there is reciprocity failure but there is none in a CCD (that I know of). I can fake reciprocity failure, sure, but CCD’s have their own limitations to light and lighting conditions. Add to that how the firmware reacts to the source information and you’ve got a whole realm of new intricacies to master. Learning those and how to manipulate and take advantage of them will be a new area to explore and create.
Canon is coming out with “35mm” digital SLR this year that will be 20 megapixels. My camera is 5mpx. I can enlarge the image to about 11×14 without the pixelation. 20mpx is basically going to make SLR’s into medium format cameras. I can’t quite put into words how impressive this is. No film SLR could possibly produce this quality. Is that going to affect the types and style of art produced with the camera? You bet. But it doesn’t seem that holding out for the old 5mpx cameras is doing us much (even though my little 1mpx camera with the plastic lens is fun to use sometimes).
In a way, this argument is similar to the old yarn about digital and analog when it comes to music. And, while I still side with analog in music, digital photography has really won my over. The quality is too high, too good. Hearkening back to when things were simpler is akin to saying “I miss the days when we had to use actual glass in the lenses and not the new, hight-tech polymers that have better resolution, less defraction, and happen to be lighter.”
I’m totally rambling and probably way off point but film isn’t dead, its got great and wonderful uses. Its just not the dominate form of photography anymore. Photography has been advancing, trying to flawlessly record information ever since it began. But even “flawlessly record” is an ambiguous term. As Wah pointed out it depends on what the hell we are recording in the first place. “The visual spectrum” doesn’t even answer the question because we still have to ask “under what conditions?” Modern cameras are attempting something, but I wouldn’t call it flawless. Hell, this might be the crux of the argument in the first place. Modern digital cameras capture a highly stylized view of the world, one in which everything is crisp, clean, brightly colored, lacking many kinds of glare, and studiously avoiding being out of focus. I don’t even see this way. My camera captures a world that I don’t see. It captures something akin to what I see, and maybe I can even imagine what it will see and so guide the art I am producing. But its not perfect. It is not the das ding an sich. I’ve got a slew of photos that I think make this point, there just isn’t room in a comment for posting them.
At this point I feel we might as well be arguing about oil versus water color, which one is “painting” and whether its possible to produce art in either anymore. [not that I want to stop the discussion mind you, maybe just focus it to specific concerns]
There’s a whole pond filled with red herrings here!
Those talking about “Megapixels” are missing the point entirely. There’s much more to an image than the number of pixels. Digital cameras still fail very miserably for tricky light situations, and they have quite a few other shortcomings (which, of course, are *different* shortcoming than those of film). Comparing pixels with film resolution is comparing apples with oranges.
Yeah, megapixels are besides the point of the slickness debate but the shortcomings of digital do make the point about the lack of perfection of images taken digitally. Arguing for film is simply to argue for one set of shortcomings over another. 5 years ago film was the obvious winner, this year it is far more complicated, 5 years from now I suspect that digital will be the obvious answer. You can make worthwhile art right now using digital cameras, it just has different limitations than film currently does. There are things you can do with film that you can’t do with digital but there are things you can do digitally that you can’t do with film. This sounds like the same argument we had circa 1990 about music.
I think it’s very, very close. I know that I, for one, always championed analog recordings. Then someone showed me one of those vinyl-to-mp3 record players, and suddenly I had digital music . . . with the illusion of warmth, or at least of physicality.
I am going to go dig through Jm’s archives to read up about “slickness.”