by Jean Jantzen
I grew up believing this assumption. Being the camera buff of the family I began to record our family history at the age of eleven with my first "Brownie" camera. "What you see is what you got" I assumed in my innocence of youth. Reality. It was not until I delved into the history of photography that I discovered that the main goal of the photographer was not just to record "truth" or "reality" but to be on a level with art.This meant a certain amount of manipulation or intervention. Under the heading Beyond Reality: Art Photography I discovered that pictorialists at the turn of the century were interested in printing techniques which allowed them manual intervention and above all, they favored stripping techniques which allowed the image to emerge gradually, as the photographer stripped away the excess clutter around it . . .The Screens they interposed between reality and its image, whether natural, optical or chemical, allowed them to work upon the gradations of shading, tones and contrasts, welding the internal parts of the image together into a harmonious, unified whole (Lemagny 98).
Instead of allowing the camera to record reality, photography became a "distinctive medium of individual expression." In many cases the photographer wanted to achieve the same level of expression as an artist did in his paintings. With newer technologies the photograph has moved through the various stages to coincide with contemporary art. Artistic photography depends upon the way everything is set up or conceived by the photographer. Even in the news, instead of being able to give us the facts, it has become a necessity that reporters must dramatize events in order to entertain us. "We can see the erosion of the myth of the photographer-reporter devoted to the ideal of representing the unvarnished truth . . . Press photography, which used to claim to be a way of knowing the world and life, can now be seen for what it is: a source of illusory, subjective, sometimes misleading images"(Lemagny 255). As explained by Sekula: the hidden imperatives of photographic culture drag us in two contradictory directions: toward 'science' and the myth of 'objective truth' on the one hand, and toward 'art' and a cult of 'subjective experience' on the other. This dualism haunts photography, lending a certain goofy inconsistency to most common place assertions about the medium. (Lister 16).
Will our newest invention, digital photography, make as big a difference as we think it might? I must admit I was a little skeptical about it, however, we have seen that manipulation of the image is nothing new. Digital photography still requires someone to take a picture. ( I must add here that the digital camera is a bit high-priced for the average person so that will limit the accessibility of this machine to a certain segment of the population.) The camera operates in much the same way except in the digital camera the image is recorded not on a piece of chemically treated paper, but "sensors convert lens-formed images into a binary numerical code that is stored electronically, and which may be retrieved at any time to be translated back into tonal values and rendered as a print" (Davis 317). If you transfer your digital photographs directly from the camera into a computer it also eliminates the need for a digital scanner. Once transferred into a computer, photographs can be imported into a project report or presentation.
These digital images may also be manipulated as with chemical prints, the difference being the picture "retains no evidence of these alterations" (317). This is, I acknowledge, a little scary. That adulterated or manipulated images can be used for entertainment is one matter, but that they can be used for propaganda, or in the news, or presented as 'truth' is unacceptable.
In many ways digital photography makes picture taking more exciting than ever. There is a very good write-up in the Calgary Herald about their switch over from conventional to digital photography. It also explains the difference between the cameras. They were the first newspaper to publish a complete edition without the use of processed film (April 4th, 1995). The cost savings in film, chemicals and paper are expected to add up to more than $100,000 per year. We must remember however, that each camera came with a price tag of $28,000. Including lenses, the cameras can hold up to 76 picture frames on removable 105 MB hard drives.
Terry Staler, a photographer of twenty five years, says in his article "My Acceptance of Digital Art, "I now consider my computer and its image-based software to be nothing more than an ADDITIONAL TOOL to assist in my photographic endeavors" Staler learned a couple of good lessons about digital photography over the past two years that I will share with you:
1) It is easy to mess up your image. Once you press save and you don't like it you are stuck with it. 2) You still have to know how to take a good picture. "The basics don't change: The composition, light quality, and technical skills will always be required." If the photo is not of good quality the computer cannot fix it.
It is difficult to imagine that photography as we know it will die out anymore than books will, nonetheless, digital photography will certainly change how we see the world. Instant pictures. Images will become more illusive, more imaginative , more open to manipulation. The digital image as an artistic tool is genuinely exciting, but as with all new and exciting technology, will it be available to the many or just the few and will it help to make the world a better place?
References
Davis, Keith, F. An American Century of Photography: From Dry-plate to Digital. Kansas: Hallmark Cards Inc. 1995
Lemagny, Jean-Claude and Andre Rouille. A History of Photography: Social and Cultural Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.1987
Lister, Martin. Ed. the photographic image in digital culture. London: Routledge. 1995