by Tom Foreman
My research into digital photography revealed that sites which did not enumerate hardware or consumer information or concerns, offered minimal discussion of the metaphysics of photography (1). By metaphysics I mean all the relative intangibles of this venerable magic art. After visiting many sites I found little worth quoting in terms of what I consider might be the significant difference between digital and traditional photography.
The observation that the look or feel of a digital photograph cannot yet compare to that of a traditional silver print was very common. Speculation as to when digital camera and printer resolution will match or exceed the resolution of a traditional silver print (2), as though the feel of a print were equal to pixel and print resolution (3) was prevalent throughout the discussions.
The feel of a Daguerreotype differs from that of a Calotype or any gelatin emulsion silver print. The evolution of these silver processes was in large part a quest for sharper image, yet each of the silver processes has a distinct feel. If a single exposed silver halide crystal represents a unit of information, the silver print is at an apex of information quantity or resolution. Even if a digital pixel could one day be reduced to the size of a silver halide crystal (difficult but perhaps not impossible for a particle physicist to imagine), the results would be different. The feel of light reflected from a silver emulsion on paper differs significantly from light reflected from a non-silver print or, for that matter, broadcast on a monitor. In this sense, the quest for resolution equality and/or superiority is a fool's errand. Trained eyes (4) will always consider the silver print as having a unique feel. The two processes, if they are related at all, must certainly complement rather than compete. The medium has changed and so the comparison seems moot.
The online discussion seems to ignore the change. Focus is placed, instead, on physical concerns, such as, how digital photography will rescue the environment from tons of discarded silver nitrate and other chemicals. Other themes include the hassle with negative purchase, loading, developing, fixing and printing in darkrooms, or how digital photography will one day reach the resolution silver prints now enjoy.
The thrust of digital photography, however, lies elsewhere. "Digital work is equally defined by the processes employed in its production or delivery or by its content [web sites, CD Roms, VR environments etc.] and any generalisations reveal immediate contradictions" (5).
The metaphysical qualities of a digital photograph are less important than its "subject matter" manipulability and the ease and breadth of delivery and display. What is the difference between the photograph Robert Cappa took with his 35mm Leica while dodging bullets during a D-Day landing and a photograph Ansel Adams made while alone in Yosemite with all the time in the world and his huge 11x14 view camera mounted on the roof of his car for stability and maximum exposure at f64? The feel of both of those silver photographs is completely different, but is the difference simply one of resolution and detail? One may argue that the difference is not so much between the photographs as between photographers. Would it matter if either photographer were using a digital camera, and if the resolution restriction of digital technology were overcome? These physical/metaphysical distinctions of process, personality, display and content strike at the heart of photography and from what I can discover receive little web attention, though admittedly my search was cursory. More probing is required.
(1) Sapwater. " Back to basics: a simple guide to understanding pixels, bits, and colour modes". Typical of articles discussing the physical nature of a digital photograph.
(2) Typical of these is a compilation article edited by David Pescovitz, "The Future of Photography." Reality Check. Issue 5.03 March 1997.
(3) Pixel size is all? It is amusing to speculate on what a postmodern feminist critical theorist could do with this inverse macho pixel-size comparison!
(4) Of course we respectfully bow once again to William Blake, in this as in so many other perceptual matters, who reminded us we see not with but through the eye. Thanks, Bill!
(5) Ride, Peter. "From silver to silicon". Creative Camera. 345, Apr/May, 1997, p.10. Reference to this article found online in EBSCO database.