"The Digital Worm In the Photograph of the Apple"

I came across an interesting book in a used book store the other

day. It is a series of essays by Max Kozloff titled "Lone Visions,

Crowded Frames". It was published in 1994. It is a series of

essays on many different subjects about photography. I found the

last essay particularly interesting, "The Digital Worm In the

Photograph of the Apple." 1994 was in the early days of digital

photography and I found interesting that he basically thought that

digital photography may eventually become another medium all unto

itself, but the one thing that worried him was digital manipulation

distorting reality. It seems that we have that same arguement today

on photonet, eleven years later. Very entertaining reading,

especially considering when the essay was written. He embraced

the "new" technology but was concerned that eventually digital

manipulation would become the norm and that younger generations of

photographers would come to accept this as "normal" in photography.

This is not meant to start any type of flame war on film vs digital

at all. I shoot both. I just found it interesting that he brought up

the same things that we discuss here today on photonet. I highly

reccomend the book to everyone

Thanks for the suggestion. I was just reading <A href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BoQN">this thread</A> the other day on a similar viewpoint made by a famous photographer that you might find interesting.

<BR><BR>

There is a lot of room for personal interpretation in this line of thought and it is always interesting to find a new angle or point of view. I think in the end, the decision comes down to the individual, as with any matter of opinion.

<BR><BR>

- Randy

It's interesting how sometimes the most obvious solution to a problem isn't apparent (to me, anyway!). I'm a digital shooter, but have no ill-will towards film, in fact with a bigger budget I'd probably shoot both just for fun, but digital is what really drew me into serious photography.

 

As this post suggested, I view film as a different medium with its own pros and cons. This is exactly how I've always viewed medium format... But for some odd reason I never put digital into that model. Digital was just it's own island. Perhaps due to its relative newcomer status in the realm of photographic formats?

 

You don't very often hear a credible heated debate between MF and 35mm. Scuffles here and there, but it seems to me that both are accepted for their well known pros and cons. So why is the dSLR vs fSLR debate so volitile? Is it that the two SLRs are more similar than an SLR vs. MF camera? How odd.

You know, I had worried about this when the digital cameras hit the market. But in the news there's been a few interesting tidbits about the whole computer age. When home computers first became a fad, people worried that the kids would become totally hooked on them. What has happened is that they grew up with them, took them for granted, some are actually spending LESS time on them, and although computers have influenced this young generation to some extent, it hasn't nearly been the evil bad influence that the first kerfuffled reaction from us "old folks" feared it would be. Now it's the digital cameras. The novelty of something new hitting the market creates a storm. This storm too shall pass. To really manipulate an image takes EFFORT. I just bought the spiffy new Rebel XT, and am going through the learning pains of loading the software, downloading the images, making corrections where necessary, then storing them on cds so I don't clutter up the harddrive. It takes a lot of TIME, dammit! And it's that very time and effort that will be put into manipulating and distorting reality that will save us from being bombarded with it to some extent. People have more fun things to do than to sit at a computer for hours on end working on a distorted image. Those who are inclined to do it will do it,and besides, the lack of a digital camera and computer never stopped the "news rags" from publishing pictures of alien babies, 6 foot long monarch butterflies, 3 headed cows and the like. So I've quit worrying about it. Now...where's my spiffy new digital camera...it's a beautiful day outside, spring has arrived, and it's time to go snap happy crazy.

Yeah, it is a weird time we live in. I shoot film cameras for my personal use but shoot digital for work. I enjoy shooting the film cameras more, but I also like the speed and ease of digital capture for my work. Kozloff also brought up what would happen 30-40 years from now when digital is completely the norm and at that time the terms that we use such as digital capture and analog capture would cease to exist because digital would be the norm. Anyway, a very interesting read. Rose Marie, you have been a photonet member for a very long time!

<I> that eventually digital manipulation would become the norm and that younger

generations of photographers would come to accept this as "normal" in photography.

</I><P>

 

Kind of like handheld calculators being the norm, over older generation slide-rules, for

doing normal arithmetic calculations.

Heck today's youth are as fat and porky as they've ever been. If its not due to too much TV, computers and X-box and mom feeding them sugar cubes to keep them busy, then I don't know what to make of it. Maybe we should strap it to their backs and make them hump it all around the block several times a day. At least thats what I heard Dr. Phil say.

Rose-Marie,<br>

That is the first time I see that somebody actually recogninzes that good manipulations take time, effort, and VISION, and I fully agree with it!

Given the prevailing feeling (it would seem) that digital brings with it some inherent dishonesty as a consequence of the ease with which 'reality' can be 'distorted', are we going to witness a swing in the opposite direction? Will film-based imaging become more 'trusted', and in so becoming, placing upon its practitioners a greater responsibility to tell the 'truth'?

 

What freedoms or restrictions will such beliefs (in that truth) foster? And more importantly how will we know that what we are being shown is in fact 'true', or 'honest' ???

 

What will those subjected to that 'truth' recording feel about it?

 

Will eg environmental activists recording damaging activities find themselves targeted specifically because they are NOT using digital cameras because the offenders cant hide behind the "well you manipulated the images in the computer" accusation. Truth is danger? Hasn't it always been....or are we entering an age of new truths?

 

The implications of digital seem easily reconciled in some ways, yet in others there are significant complications and concerns.

Nobody says manipulation is bad. it is just another (powerful) instrument. As such, can be put to good use or not.

Rose Marie - <i>"the lack of a digital camera and computer never stopped the "news rags" from publishing pictures of alien babies, 6 foot long monarch butterflies, 3 headed cows and the like."</i>

<br>

I'm very glad someone pointed this out. Photography has manipulated the truth and trust issue since the 19th century when a photographer faked his own suicide photographically and ran it in a newspaper(in France I believe). And people were horrified then because they could no longer believe in the absolute impartiality of the camera capturing whatever is in front of it. This was a flawed belief to begin with, photography was never about truth, it does not reveal truth, rather it's the truth as the photographer sees it(sometimes). And digital has certainly had a huge impact on the perceptions of photographic truth, it has not actually changed the fact that photographs can be created to lie.

Yes Michael, there has always been six foot monarchs and three headed cows, yet now they are just one degree more convincing, not to you or me or anybody else on this website, but that lady/guy in the supermarket checkout line with three kids, they just hit their tipping point. And they have a vote.

 

Yes, "digital has had a huge impact on perceptions of photographic truth"... Is this huge impact positive, or negative?

 

The photographic medium serves many purposes. Same with video, audio, print, etc. The great temptation is to blur the lines between puposes. The Nat'l Enquirer will always be the Nat'l Enquirer, but is Fox News journalism? Is Fahrenheit 911 just a movie?

 

Same as in photos, I'm not looking for truth, just integrity. I spout off about this digital/analogue thing all the time, without saying how much I really appreciate the photos I see on this site.

 

Rick, thanks the Kozloff recommendation, I'll go find it.

<i>Yes, "digital has had a huge impact on perceptions of photographic truth"... Is this huge impact positive, or negative? </i><br><br>

The huge impact is both positive and negative. In many ways I believe it's good for people to question their sources of information, and photographs should be questioned as well when they are in a newspaper/magazine/tv. Maybe(and this is probably a stretch) with the digital age upon us people will think more about what a photograph says, how and why it says it instead of simply accepting it as absolute. <br>

On the negative this belief can and has degraded the reputation of sincere journalists(along with the NY Times reporter who never left his apartment but reported on stories around the country). And digital has made photographic lying/misrepresentation easier, this can't be good(except in the case of fine art/advertising that is not meant to be objective). <br>

On the other hand, misrepresenting in digital takes great intent. It's not the same as using a wide angle lens to make a space look bigger. It takes careful and determined manipulation. <br>

As for Fox News and Fahrenheit 911 it's more a question of style than of technology. Both claim to tell the truth, I very much doubt either is. <br>

thanks for your response Rich, I'm sure there's a lot more to this than I've thought of so far.

Yah, "worm in the apple" is a pretty strong analogy. I wouldn't want my craft

referred to as a worm in an apple.

The 20D offers you the option of marking your files as original as they come off the camera. I am not sure in the journalistic world they can verify an unaltered photo but I know in contests there has been verification. I find I take better images if I keep in the back of my mind while shooting "how much time is it going to take to edit these shots" ususally with that motivation I get more keepers. Though blasting away sometimes gives you that one in a million.