a thought on digital photography

[chelsea]

Mark Ci beat me to the point that the images have to have some kind of physical form for viewing, and said it far more succinctly than I probably would have.<BR><BR>

As far as how society is affected by it, I'm just wondering how many ticked off granmas there will be 20 years from now when they haven't printed off a hard copy of the family pictures. Many people I know who are diving into digital <I><B>do not print</B></I> their images, or even save them properly. I know of 3 people now who have lost all their precious snapshots of the baby's christening or the nephew's wedding or somebody's 90th birthday celebration...because they slapped them onto a hard drive, enjoyed emailing them, but didn't back them up onto disk or print out a copy--and the hard drive crashed, wiping everything on it. They are NOT happy campers. This is one reason why if I'm shooting pics of an event I want saved, out comes my trusty little Canon sureshot with print film. I can always scan into digital.<BR><BR>

I'm also thinking of the effect of the cellphone cameras. Just look at how many gyms and clubs have banned these from the premises, or made people check them in at the desk, because of the abuse of these devices. <I>"How would that change how we interact with each other?"</I> For one thing, it has eroded trust in our fellow individuals when someone whips these things out in certain settings.

[thomas_sullivan]

Thanks Beau...<br><br>

 

...and for those that think that a digital picture, or any other digital information, cannot be "no physical form" should read the link that Beau provided above on <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/economy.ideas.html">The Economy of Ideas</a><br><br>...an excerpt from said article "Some might argue that information will still require some physical manifestation, such as its magnetic existence on the titanic hard disks of distant servers, but these are bottles which have no macroscopically discrete or personally meaningful form."<br><br>

[grant_.]

"but these are bottles which have no macroscopically discrete or personally meaningful form"

<br>

<br>

what the hell does that mean

[mark_warren1]

<i>...to them, it's freedom.</i>

 

<br><br>

Digital cameras haven't changed photography, just made it more spontaneous. The average digital consumer is still taking bad photos/snap shots. Some people are willing to pay thousands for that convenience.

 

 

<Br><br>remember albums? fragile and scratchy?<br>remember cds? How many could you carry at one time?<Br>both those technologies are dead.<Br><Br>

Freedom is 2,000+ audio mp3 files on my ipod. Music, anywhere, anytime. That is freedom. Never have to go to a store to buy music...aren't mp3s without form?

[aruel]

What we experience as the physical thing on a printed photography is the reflection of light over its surface, in 'digital' the physical space im refering is not the hard drive, cd bytes or whatever (is your printed photo on the chemicals the lab uses?). On your screen for example, the physical 'object' is composed by little 'magic' light dots.

[thomas_sullivan]

heh.......well, it was suppose to get you to read the article ;o)

 

it means that the bottle is like the disk, the hard drive, the monitor....it has a shape, but it is nothing...except what is housed within it....which is like wine. The wine is the desirable thing, the digital information........the "bottle" contains it.

 

further in the article it goes on to provide other examples.................it is the pitch, not the baseball, the dance, not the dancer.

 

Like at icp..........it wasn;t the tv screens that were the art, it was the image housed in them that was the art. The tv screens were not "personally meaningful", the art (image) in them was.....well, some of them were anyhow ;o)

[andy_laycock]

I'm a bit of pessimist but I don't see visual communication replacing written or spoken communication anytime soon. What surprised me most about the communication boom is that we've returned to the written word with the advent of e-mail. For me that's caused more of change than digital photography ever will.

 

I also don't see books being replaced because they are not inconvenient at present. Much of what I see with new technology, including digital cameras, is about increasing convenience.

[aruel]

The real 'non physic form' revolution will begin when digital information can be delivered right to your brain without the need of our analog perceptions...

<br><br>

 

So what about LSD?

[grant_.]

im not so sure those things can be seperated....the dancer IS the dance....one cannot exist without the other....

<br>

<br>

OHHHHHHHHH, its on NOW! :D

[aruel]

I did read the article, still in my opinion is the same thing.

 

A printed photo produced with film is just a technique that uses analog methods to store 'information'. The camera, the film, the papper, the chemicals, etc are the bottle. The same as hard drive, monitor, warrens ipod, etc. In both cases the physical world is just a medium a support. And we still the physical world to get something into our mind. :)

[Barry Thomas]

<P><i>Neil D. (also Jeff Spirer): "(surely stone will outlast paper any day?!)..."</i>

<p>Sorry I've arrived at this party late... I still carve letters on stone and I expect they will last quite a while, but I take pics of them on digital... there is (and will be) room for both vanilla <i>and</i> chocolate. Each new technology / way of working / way of thinking doesn't replace <i>all</i> that went before it, a lot of it for sure, but there are remnants of all kinds of things left at the side of the main flow if you keep an eye out for them.

<p><img src="http://www.barrythomas.co.uk/limey.jpg">

[paul_s.1]

Oh, I just remembered an article I read about digital changing the way we view images. The one thing that I found fascinating was the idea that people no longer save their snapshots in a physical form. The shoe box filled with old family photos is becoming a thing of the past. Most people, the article stated, probably would not take the time to transfer their old photos to the newer storage devices, and thus these images would become lost forever as old storage technology was replaced (sort of like albums on 8 track tapes).

 

 

Obviously only time will tell if this happens, but if it does, it would be a shame.

Going through those old shoe boxes can be a lot of fun!

[neild]

I was going to share my amazement at how well this discussion was progressing... but I see we're beginning to fall to our usual level! :-(

<p>

On a more relevant note, Jake said, <i>"He has flat screen panels on the walls of his Seattle Xanadu where he supposedly displays some of the great art from previous centuries."</i> You took the words out of my keyboard (almost) - I was going to say that, in the future, flat screens will become cheap (or affordable at least), and then your average homeowner (and renter, etc) will have them in their places of residence. They could then display these digital images much like we hang paintings or prints now.

<p>

Also, <i>some</i> images look better as digitally displayed images IMO - these images glow from within (really - from the screen!), whereas conventional prints don't. Note that I don't say that you need to have used a digital camera to get this effect: a digital scan is just as valid. Also, sure there are many (maybe most?) photos which look great, or best, on paper - I don't dispute this either. But displaying images via a screen <i>can</i> be the best way to present it, IMO.

[andy_laycock]

Paul when you say they would probably not transfer their old photos to new storage devices I take it you mean digital files and not old prints? If so I agree with the article. The nice thing about prints is that you only need light and eyes to view them.<div></div>

[paul_s.1]

Yes Andy, that was what I meant. They view their images on the computer, but never print them.

 

Cool photo!

[bjorke]

Lots of high-falutin' talk about non-physicality, as if that's something desireable or

somehow different from television or cave painting. Are you saying that a picture on a

screen is different from a picture on paper? Is it a picture of what a picture *would*

be? Or is it simply a different method of arranging the bits?

 

They are arranged as streams of bits on a CD to be re-assembled on a screen, or they

are trapped in a bit of silver and gelatin to be enlarged or scanned. In either case they

are the same. The fact that it's easy to recognize a negative as such-and-such a

photo doesn't make it significantly more or less concrete. It is not the final product,

nor (and this is the Big Deal) is it the subject. It's a proxy, a representation of your

dog, your grandparents, your trip to Nassau, or even the angst-ridden dreams that

torment your inner child. A representation, in every case. And we've had those around

for at least 20,000 years.

 

Take a belt sander to your favorite CD full of digi pics. Are they non-physical? Yeah,

you *could* have made a copy. You could have a copy neg too. Physical/nonphysical,

plastic art/performance art, these are the basic issues of photography and have been

for 150 years. Tell me, does a rack of heavy film spools resemble Marilyn Monroe?

Only if they are processed on the spot by the appropriate machinery. Same as digital.

[thomas_sullivan]

no..............silver halides and "streams of bits" are different. silver halides have a physical form of their own, giving enough magnification you can actually see the physical form they have. As a matter of fact, they dont even have to be on the film to be physical, thats just a method to keep them altogether. Streams of bits...........show me a picture of them. Not a bunch of representations, such as 1's and 0's, or another construct to represent them, including ocsiloscopes, electron/proton/neutron models, etc. Stream of bits are not physical.

 

But that's not really the topic here anyhow...........although it did digress into it...., the topic is how does digital photography change the way in which we interact with each other. The reason i said an art medium that has no physical form is becuase that possiblilty, to never be a print...positve or negative...paper or film, exists only with digital. It REQUIRES an output contraption to be recognizable by humans...............film is an output already.

 

Digital Point and shoot cams put this in everybody's hands. Forget the pro photographer, or marketting people, or the fashion industry, or even the news photog..................they do not determine how every day man/woman/child will function. Everyday man/woman/child has a machine, easily obtainable, thanks to automation easily used and easily conveyed to other everyday men/women/children. And next to instantly...........film, even in your wildest imagination never had that.

 

So, how do you think that changes how people will interact with each other?

[andy_laycock]

Thomas I can only judge based upon my everyday world and so far I see no difference. Maybe if I had kids it might be a different story because I know they spend alot of time on their cellphones etc. but other than that photos, no matter how they are made, seem to occupy the same space they did before - which is a keeper of memories for most people.

[thomas_sullivan]

well, Andy, if you want to have an inside view of kids way of utilizing digital pics these days.............pop on into a photoblog site. Yeah, there are some serious photographers in there, but the majority of the photoblogs are kids just showing what they see each day..............and no "keepers of memories" reside in that pile of snaps.....at least not the traditional film memories.

[andy_laycock]

I've seen some of the Photoblog sites. Not sure if it's going to change society though. Kids have a way of growing up and leaving that sort of thing behind.

[bradley.scarbrough]

"silver halides and "streams of bits" are different"

 

It's easy to confuse capture and output. I see them as two different things. I don't think digital cameras are going to be quite as revolutionary as telephones. Or even cellular telephones. However, they are revolutionizing photography. Personally I think it's a good thing. Kevin Bjorke made some eloquent points imho.

[grant_.]

the way it changes how people interact is that pix are more immediate and more accessible than theyve ever been by the average person. you can shoot a pic/movie on a cell phone and send it to someone while the event is still happening, wherever you are....id say thats pretty fascinating.....is it necessary?? well thats another thread for another day...

[ky2]

Long before the information revolution started (late 60's), my father took some computer classes in the local technology-focused university. I always remember one thing he told me, after I showed him the then-new Mac interface (circa 1984). He told me that the greatest computer-innovation he has ever witnessed was not the GUI, or the Computer Terminal, or the keyboard; it wasn't the microprocessor itself, or communications, the PC, or the internet. The greatest thing that made the *most difference*, was the introduction of the now long-forgotten computer-cards. The change from paper stripes was so dramatic, it had rocketed the entire IT development procedure into what we know today. It turned computer-programming into a real profession.

 

Digital photography is evolution, not invention. The greatest steps in photography were taken centuries ago, with the first camera-obscura, with the introduction of film, and with the introduction of mobile, compact cameras. As Beau noted above, it harnesses the power of digital-- but it does nothing more than that. Change society? Digital photography is more or less the equivalent of a better headache pill; it's not the cure to cancer or Aids.

[jbq]

'no..............silver halides and "streams of bits" are different.'

 

Off-topic, I visited the computer history museum (in "alpha phase") in Mountain View, CA, and one of the devices on display is a mass-storage device that uses photographic film as medium, complete with fully automated processor and scanner.

[thomas_sullivan]

well, after reading your comments and the links that Beau provided...and a few dozen google searches...I've come to the conclusion that digital photography is not the "great watershed event", but that digital information itself, for whatever medium its eventual use is, is the Great Watershed Event. If you only buy into half of what John Perry Barlow (one of the link's authors) said, it's already put the copyright and invention laws in the trash. Apparently they were all written and conceived with a "physical" product in mind. He says that they in no way adequately cover the digital information arena. That I can buy..........still mulling over his conclusions as to how to fix it though.

 

However, one of the areas of his paper that does touch on the Art world had a rather interesting conclusion........"...In fact, until the late 18th century this model was applied to much of what is now copyrighted. Before the industrialization of creation, writers, composers, artists, and the like produced their products in the private service of patrons. Without objects to distribute in a mass market, creative people will return to a condition somewhat like this, except that they will serve many patrons, rather than one...."

 

hmmmmmmmm...."without objects to distribute".......sounds like he is saying that the "print" is out of the picture.....at least from the Artists hands. Actually, I could live with that.......would be more than glad to sell someone a perfect digital file and let them deal with those printers....clog ladden ink monsters that they are.