Interactive Photography?

Hello to everybody!<p>

 

I'm gathering information towards my dissertation in Digital Photography. If there are any philosophers and image

theorist out there, perhaps you can share some thoughts on ‘interactive photography’. Here is what I'm interested

in:<p><p>

 

<b>How has computer mediated interactive environment changed the way we perceive photography? Case study on

comparing the use of photography in Flash animated projects to interactive online gallery style of

environments.</b><p>

 

More precisely:<br>

What happens to photography in Flash animated environment?<br>

Can ‘interactive photography’ be called photography in its conventional meaning?<p><p>

 

<b>What do I mean by ‘interactive photography’ </b>(the third point in this list):<br>

Levels of (inter)activity<br>

- Traditional analogue photograph is active in the sense that it creates a reaction when we see it, but the

photograph itself is a physical object which exists somewhere in time and space<br>

- Digital photography is interactive in the sense that we have to interact with a piece of equipment to

bring the photograph to our attention, to look at it, etc.<br>

- The second level of interactivity emerges in the specific computer mediated environment, specifically in

Flash, where the subject of the photograph can be changed by interacting with it, the user has some control over

what she or he can see<p>

 

<b>For examples, please have a look at:</b><br>

<a href="http://www.karelpolt.com/flash/">http://www.karelpolt.com/flash/</a><br>

My own project for a unit in university. Explores exactly the topic I want to research in the dissertation.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.kubikfoto.de/index.php?id=projekte">http://www.kubikfoto.de/index.php?id=projekte</a><br>

A German company/artistic collective working along the same lines. Their slogan is ‘Interactivating Photography’ .<p>

 

<a href="http://www.99rooms.com/">http://www.99rooms.com/</a><br>

An interesting journey and study of space from another German collective using photography as the base for the

project.<p>

 

<a href="http://passagen12.de/">http://passagen12.de/</a><br>

Yet another German project. This one uses text and graphics alongside with photographs.<p>

 

All these projects have something in common and at the moment I can only describe it as <b>Digital Interactive

Photomontage</b>. Here I will try to take it apart and explain what I mean:<br>

1. All these projects use (digital) photography as a base, yet <br>

2. All these projects use a mix of other old media, that could include <br>

- Animation/film<br>

- Audio<br>

- Game elements (navigation, action-reaction)<br>

- Text<br>

- Graphics<br>

3. Seamless digital photomontage is used for creating an immersive environment – the finer the montage, the more

believable the images<br>

4. Most of these projects use the ‘second level of interactivity’ I mentioned above. <br>

5. Also, many of the projects have some sort of a narrative which the viewer can explore through the

interactivity, this includes the looping animation which in some sense is a very short narrative played over and

over again<p>

 

<b>Here are some more links to see interesting uses of photography in interactive environments</b>, but they are all

lacking this ability to change the subject of the photograph:<br>

<a

href="http://geoimages.berkeley.edu/worldwidepanorama/wwp/index.html.ee">http://geoimages.berkeley.edu/worldwidepanorama/wwp/index.html.ee</a><br>

A selection of 360 degree images that let you do exactly what it says – to have a look around that specific point

in all the possible directions<br>

<a href="http://maps.google.com/help/maps/streetview/">http://maps.google.com/help/maps/streetview/</a><br>

Google Maps Street View does essentially the same as the above, but with a big difference of all the locations

being connected, so it enables you to ‘walk’ digitally on streets where you have never been in real life.<br>

<a href="http://photosynth.net/">http://photosynth.net/</a><br>

Similar to Street View, but open to everybody to submit images. You can create the effect of 3D world by taking

hundreds of photos which will be stitched together automatically and presented in a way that creates a navigable

space.<p>

 

Thanks.

Well, Karel ...

 

What you call interactive is really so, so slooooow that i did not wait for any of your links to become operative. I did let them

load for a couple of minutes each but then gave up. Silly me.

 

So, the main problem here is internet savvy and internet throughput ...

 

Sorry, but I cannot really wait the full 5-10 minutes to become interactive? Can you?

Interactivity is the enemy of close attention, meditative appreciation, and comprehension...except in forums like this.

 

The photographic viewer misses the opportunity to learn someone else's perspective if s/he's pumping opinions and attitudes back into it.

 

Interactivity degrades relationships between viewers and photographers. It subtracts value, adds noise.

 

An "image theorist" is by definition not a significant photographer.

Karl, show your photographs in the Photo.net gallery. If you cannot you are not a photographer.

..."If you cannot you are not a photographer." Too harsh.

 

I should have asked:

 

Why have you asked for help without showing the courtesy of sharing your images?

 

If you cannot share your images, why are you bothering to address "interactivity?"

Thanks for the answers, but I think you are both kind of missing the point here. I'm not here to argue with anybody, just asking for opinions and ideas that sprout considering what I wrote above.

 

To Frank Uhlig:

I understand your problem. If your connection is really so slow, you cannot advise me, as this doesn't concern the topic. Naturally, you shouldn't wait longer than 10 seconds.

 

To John Kelly:

I consider myself as a photographer, but I'm also a student for now. I exhibit my work continuously on the web on various sites, as well as in the real world. But this is not the current topic. I value your feedback, but I have a feeling you haven't read my posting completely. The first link in the post takes you to my Flash project which is entirely based on my photography. Now, if you could go through that, leave the theme aside and think critically about the possibility of interaction on the photographs, perhaps you can give me some feedback that actually is worth some further discussion.

Karel,

 

my connection is on iternet 2 and Nasa loads gigabytes per second here for me. It is the servers at the other end. Sorry. But

you do not understand my problem because I have none. The problem is not on my end ...

Karel, your original post asked questions that were too vague to be taken seriously ("what happens to..." and

"can it be called...") ...then added something self evident as if it was significant: When a human uses a tool,

such as a stone axe, butter knife, or DSLR...yes...that's interactive.

 

You'd have generated better response if you'd stated your ideas, provided your links.

 

IMO you might best forget your existing ideas about these topics and your Flash project, start fresh.

 

Find somebody to concisely address your online examples in writing .perhaps a journalism writing major among your

peers would collaborate ( might come close to cheating) :-)

 

Thanks for pointing back to your Flash project. It's admirable photographically. It does not seem significantly

interactive.

 

My download (DSL) has been adequately fast...no problem. A minority of modern systems have trouble with Flash,

don't plan around them.

 

Highly interactive websites have existed from the beginning of today's Internet (cc 1993 with the beta of

Netscape)... many involve photography.

 

"Old media" such as graphic elements and illustrations have long been combined with photography.

 

An early commercial use of photography in the US was portraiture of Civil War corpses, negs retouched with

cochineal dye to "open their eyes"... virtually the same effect as the batting eyes in your project...the dead

came back to life.

 

360degree spherical panoramas are interactive, amusing. I think they're dead ends on monitors, but might have

potential as projections. Real estate sales companies routinely offer interactive online panoramas walk-throughs

for the prospective buyer to explore from desktop. Some travel destinations offer the same sort of thing. The

tools are available cheaply on Ebay.

 

www.soundslides.com ... examples of straight multi-media journalism, "art." and journalism that's more Art

than "art." The photography ranges from snapshot to literal Magnum photojournalism. Many newspapers and

magazines (eg New York Times and New Yorker Magazine) make heavy use of Flash online. PBS and other TV, including

the current Worlds Series, routinely point to extensive online content, including audio slide shows, interactive

graphics, videos ...heavy Flash journalism...they use "traditional" graphic elements in all cases, and add them

to photographs where the designers think it evocative or helpful. And of course, they use sound, since their goal

is communication.

....I didn't mean to suggest that you stop you Flash project, I meant only to say that the ideas you've attached to it seem dead ends.

Karel, I'm not sure quite how to answer your questions, nor am I certain what the questions are. However, as a web designer, photographer, and retired sensory physiologist, I have often wondered why simple flash methods such as small pans and zooms draw the viewer so effectively into the still photo. It seems to me that the subtle movements are more effective than motionless presentation because of their involvememt of additional visual areas that process movement and direct visual and cognitive attention to elements that move.

 

I've also wondered why interactive elements on a web site seem to be more effective in conveying the content of the web page. I can only conclude that true immersion in a photographic image/concept occurs only when many areas of the brain become engaged. Interactivity involves a wealth of frontal lobe activity, as compared to occipital and parietal lobe activity alone. That probably enhances memory formation and therefore the total impact of the image.

 

In a seemingly unrelated observation, I've also been rather frustrated as a still phographer that the "enormity" of some scenes is so difficult to represent in a single image without the very salient perspective effects that arise through the relative motion of the elements (esp. foreground vs. background). I've experimented with stereo images, but they do not quite land the experience. Holographic images come closer. Holograms, of course, are interactive.

 

If one observes a number of animals, particularly reptiles and birds, but also mammals (including humans), one will notice that the most active observation, especially of distant objects, involves small head movements that yield powerful perspective cues. Without these cues, it is hard to engage with the stimuli to the same extent.

 

I'll offer this final stray thought: I've often pondered what HDR is all about. Why does it hit us in the face -- KAPOW! Why does it leave us so empty? Is there such a thing as "HDR fatigue?" (Newly coined term. You heard it here first.) Is this not similar to Susa's "Stars and Stripes Forever?" Ethyl Merman? (You're young, but you can wiki her and maybe even find some clips on YouTube.) Is it like dining on skittles? I personally think sensory overload is a very bad thing. One cannot hope to convey the importance of one sentence with an exclamation mark if every sentence in the paragraph ends with an exclamation mark! Furthermore, the excessive use of exclamation marks can get rather irritating! JUST LIKE SENTENCE FRAGMENTS! AND EXCESSIVE USE OF ALL-CAPS! We have to choose our messages carefully and save punctuation for where it is most effective, or else the viewer/listener/reader gets fatigued and goes away. (Then the impact is lost.)

 

I hope some of these stray thoughts are useful somehow.

Sarah, you're a fine writer. Your point about sensory overload (that's almost your point) has merit.

 

But I disagree about HDR.. some photographers use it with grace, not as a sensory trick...it doesn't always

"KAPOW" any more than platinum prints do. Reminds me of Ciba prints...almost never done well, but were sometimes

exceptional.

 

Further, the idea that it's good to be "drawn into" an image by a technology seems like advocating polarizing

sunglasses in order to wander in the desert with a camera (detracting from color vision). Technology, such as

Flash, is simply a tool...perhaps too easy to use when not needed.

 

I think the passive image is what "should" draw active viewers in, not some sensory trick to draw passive viewers

in. You seem think that too, regarding HDR.

 

In that context: in graduate school, cc 1967, working with both sensory deprivation chamber and photograpy

projects, my biggest challenges from experimental subjects looking at images were 1) whining/personal

passivity(as always) and 2) LSD influences. Maybe that relates.

Hi John,

 

You're right about HDR, of course. I'm referring mostly to the overcooked tone mapping, yielding wild, gray images with exaggerated edges (You know the ones!). It's a bit like crack cocaine for our visual systems, I think. But I admit I've also seen HDR techniques applied tastefully. In those cases, there is none of the Ethyl Merman/KAPOW element to which I referred above. ;-)

 

All these things are rather new, so it's a bit difficult to know how and where to use them. Remember zoom lenses in cinematography back in the 70's? All those psychodelic zoomy/tilty shots? We were trying our new legs back then and had all of the subtlety of gawky adolescents. Zooming motions nowadays are much more subtle, used mostly as tools to draw the viewer into the action. Over-the-top zoom punctuation is rare and is used very judiciously and deliberately.

 

Anyway, we have a sudden explosion of technology at our fingertips that we have not had time to grow into. It will all take a lot of sorting out. In the mean time, I try to be measured in what I do, remembering well the lessons of fads gone by. One of the goals of my work is to stand the test of time. ;-)

"Traditional analogue photograph is active in the sense that it creates a reaction when we see it, but the photograph

itself is a physical object which exists somewhere in time and space"

 

How about this for interacting with a still photograph? In 1977 I did a photography show at a college in which I put a

strip of 36-inch wide, white butcher paper horizontally across a wall. On the paper, I mounted seven, 8x10-inch black-

and-white photographs.

 

Under each photograph, I hung Crayons on strings from the traditional 8 color pack. I put a statement next to the

line of photographs inviting people to color the black and white photographs. People timidly started putting colors

onto the phototgraphs....and then really got into it. For about 7 days the images would change nearly hourly - and

the people started incorporating the white space on the butcher paper into the "audience participation" work.

 

At the end of 10 days, seemingly by some unknown group agreement - all work ceased. They had colored the

photographs and turned the entire line into a seven car train by putting wheels under the photos, a track, etc.

 

My point is - your assumption that traditional photographs are only to be looked at may be your paradigm and not

everyone elses. Why not think about what you can do to engage viewers of traditional photographs so they interact

with them - instead of buying into a static thought process?

 

 

"The second level of interactivity emerges in the specific computer mediated environment, specifically in Flash, where

the subject of the photograph can be changed by interacting with it, the user has some control over what she or he

can see."

 

Not really. The viewer has no control unless you are going to allow them to change the image themselves into

something completely different. In the case of your site - rolling over the images is just diddling with the Flash

objects or effects you've embedded - I'm not changing ANYTHING, I'm only viewing what you're allowing me to see.

That's hardly anymore interactive than simply viewing a photograph.

I'm trying with great difficulty to wrap my head around what you define the difference between analog/film and digital. In either case the photographer is using equipment to realize an image. It starts with a camera and ends with a print or projectable image. One uses a darkroom the other uses a computer, only the medium changes.

 

Flash animation is nothing more then a digital version of an old motion picture technique long used by documentary film makers to deal with historical events where there are only static images; zooms, pans, tilts and sweeps. Just because the technology changes doesn't make something interactive.

 

For me, interactive means the image changes according to my perception and input. A image recorded with a still camera remains a still images no matter how one might animate its view. A good composition has visual flow that the eye can follow without the need for animation. That's the way I interact with a photograph. My eye follows the flow across, down, diagonally, around and focuses where it lands, the zoom.

 

The more things change, the more they remain exactly the same.

Both Glenn and Steve have this nailed.

 

One wiggle: there's evidence that televised images are perceived differently than other images, for *neurological * reasons (not psychological/sociological) . May have to do with flicker/refresh, which may have vanished as an issue.

 

The only substantial public discussion I've seen about TV/perception/neurology was in the famous "Four Arguments For The Elimination Of Television" (pre-released several years earlier, formally first published 1977, in print ever since, still widely read)

 

The key point for our discussion: Research in the 70s indicates that televised material flitted in and out of our minds without sticking...we have a harder time learning from it than we do from non-TV media.

 

There wasn't a lot of that research, unfortunately, but it did appear to be well-done and statistically significant.

 

Four Arguments is written well (the author was an advertising account executive, Freeman, Mander, and Gossage was my client)...it addresses negative aspects of TV from neurological/physiological, psychological, as well as the author's subjective perspectives.. mostly based on research that may be hard to find today because it was all reported in printed research not readily found outside university libraries (eg psychological research journals). I did personally see some of the material in the journals when the book was first published.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Arguments-Elimination-Television-Jerry-Mander/dp/0688082742.

Sarah, I think "subtle" zooms are mostly lazy (and cheap) ways of avoiding preliminary thought, engagement with

subject (person or thing) and editing.

 

Viewers don't notice "subtle" zooms and don't benefit by them, but the videographer (or still photographer)

does... which doesn't mean the image benefits.

Setting aside the specific use of Flash (since that's only one interactive medium for photos) I'd like to look at the larger domain of the "computer mediated interactive environment." The simplest interaction with a photo is to view it. On many websites that host photos, there are various methods used to rank the popularity images. Viewing an image might increment a view counter, commenting on it would likewise affect it's status, and marking it as a favorite additionally adds to the favorable ranking of a photo.

 

While interactive walk-throughs and 360 degree panoramas seem promising, I don't think they've had much success so far. One prominent exception is Google street view, which puts the ability to navigate through a pictorial space to excellent use. Here is an interactive photographic medium (albeit a rather mundane one) that is being used by many thousands of users daily.

 

We have long interacted with photographs via scissors and glue; to make scrapbooks, collages and photo montage. While this capability could easily be replicated online, it brings up potential legal and ethical issues about using copyrighted material in a public space. A way around that dillemma would be to create a virtual photo graffiti wall where anyone can plaster their own photos, or limit available images to those with an appropriate creative commons license. I also envision a wall sized touch screen in a public space, where co-creators can grab photos out of a picker, throw them on the wall and manipulate them in various ways.

 

Photography is, for the most part, a solitary act of creation. Interactive media brings private creativity into a social sphere. Pictures might become part of a visual conversation, a group collaborative effort or form a virtual space that one may tour through.

David--

 

I do mostly portraits and, although there is still certainly a solitary aspect, especially in the post processing, much of my

shooting is involved with a great deal of interactivity, therefore collaborative to begin with. Often, the viewing of

photographs also feels a bit interactive, since I often do it with my subjects, to at least some extent. Other viewers of my

work, as you suggest, are often doing their viewing non-interactively.

I don't think "interactive" is only a mechanical adjective....it's an easy, value-free characteristic...like "pink" or "heavy."

 

Fred's photos are inherently interactive, as are all portraits and many "nature" photos...but some photographers somehow don't "engage" so much as "capture". To my way of thinking, someone who captures decorative, or even exciting images has not necessarily engaged. Fred engages his subjects, Weston engaged his peppers, Cindy Sherman engages concepts, someone who sees a nice kitty kat and snaps it may engage nothing at all.

...oops...I meant to say that I DO think "interactive" is only a mechanical adjective....not a value.

Karel-

It seems to me that the projects that you have chosen to link here merely use photography. It becomes a tool for further means- the

animation. The photography and video stills(kubikfoto) serve as a tableau or mise-a-scene. There is no interactivity with the

photography, per se. I also think that your ideas about "interactivity" levels with analog and digital media are wrong. You may or may not

be interactive with either one- it just depends on the situation. Also keep in mind when you discuss the "believability" of a montage,

most people set their own standards for verisimilitude. To answer your question about how interactivity has changed peoples perception

of photography in the computer mediated environment: generally, none. What has changed is the ability to utilize and manipulate

photographs in a broader sense. Keep in mind people are very savvy and understand the differences which separate photography and

animations- and how to approach them.

So to put all of this in normal English, there are photos you can play with, either mounted on a wall with crayons or animated and movable on a computer screen, and there are photos you can look at but not touch.

 

To answer your first question, I think you need to answer two simpler questions: how are play-with-me photos perceived and how are don´t-touch-me-photos perceived.

 

The answers are going to depend on who you ask. Personally, I'm not that old but I'd far rather look at a book of photos than have to deal with a slow-loading pile of flash photographs. Browsing through a book of photographs, of course, is interactive, too.