Technology and photography

Lamborghini Aventador at the L.A. Auto Show

*Pictures not related.
Is modern Technology killing the art of photography? It seems to be a topic that comes up a lot these days. I've seen photographers on twitter complain about being told "it's the camera that takes great pictures, not you". If you follow the news much, there seems to be a global uproar about magazines "Photoshoping" pictures. Of course the reality is, this is not new. There is substantial evidence (see this CBS News article) to show that photo manipulation has been around since... well, before photos. The theory is that Renascence  painters would use a camera obscura to project an image of their subject onto the canvas, and then they would simple trace the projection. This would allow them to get very good detail without having to make the model pose for days. After the model leaves, the artist would go back and paint over the sketch. Sounds like Photoshop to me. I would speculate that many King and Queen left artists with explicit instructions to "trim the waistline" or "drop the double chin"
"That's Different" you say. "There was no photographic emulsion then, there were no image sensors". True, but did people stop manipulating images once photographic emulsion was invented? There are many documented cases of people being added, and removed from photos in the mid 1800's. (As seen in this discussion on civilwartalk.com). There was also a cottage industry of "Spirit Photography" where unscrupulous photographers would use double exposure, and darkroom tricks to add "ghosts" to images. (See this article by Kristi Finefield on the Library of Congress Blog).
"But what about the true artists? they didn't do that". Have you heard of Man Ray? Andy Warhol? Even Ansel Adams, the king of natural landscapes, heavily manipulated his images in the darkroom. He even wrote a very good book on the subject that I suggest all of you read. Ansel Adams: The Print . In the book, Adams goes into detail on photo manipulation and the many techniques to accomplish it (like burning and dodging... yes like the photoshop tools.) He even goes as far as to theorize that the actual taking of the photograph is just the "visualization" of the photograph. The actual printing (and manipulation of the negative) is the true creation of the photograph.

A tree on a hill at the top of Reseda Blvd

*On a similar note, early in my career when I used to work for an optical effects house in Glendale Ca, I had the pleasure of working with an effects artist named Gene Young. Gene once worked for a guy named Linwood Dunn. Linwood Dunn is one of the pioneers of motion picture optical effects. Gene told me a story once about how Linwood (while working at RKO for Howard Hughes) would take a small piece of gauze and use it to blur the cleavage on an actress while making a film print so the censors wouldn't attack the film. So now you know where photoshops Gaussian blur comes from.)

Skull Beads

I personally believe that post processing of an image is a part of the art form, but the ability to frame and capture a distinct moment in a way that conveys an idea is the true art. Does the modern camera lessen that in anyway? It makes it easier, true. A photographer can now focus on finding that moment. With a modern camera you no longer need to worry about whether you have the right speed film in your camera for the conditions you are shooting in. (Of course you could always push or pull your film in processing if you screwed that up). A modern photographer doesn't need to worry about focus with auto focus lenses. (but let's face it, if you are like me, that is set to manual most of the time anyway because the auto focus always pics the wrong thing to focus on., and auto focus lenses have been around a lot longer then digital cameras). Modern camera's automatically set the exposure... yes, so photographers don't need to pull out exposure meters every 5 minutes now... They still need to determine the depth of field they want for the image, and set the iris accordingly.

Culver City as seen from the Getty Center

The real "problem" with modern technology and photography is that it puts the tools of the professional in the hands of everyone. and since a pro can't be everywhere at once, regular people are getting great shots that they can sell, and it is cutting into the pros pockets. Even though Bob from accounting may make an extra $20.00 a month from selling his vacation photos on istock, it will still be the professional who is hired to get the shot of the couple at the romantic candle lit dinner, shot in a studio, professionally lit, with a make-up artist touching up the models, prop people making sure the food, and wine look perfect, and an agency exec in the back complaining that the out of focus deep background corner of the room is to dark. True, the professional photography industry has to adapt and change because of technology, but that is true of all industry. As a true fan of the art form, I dare say this is a good thing. Imagine for a minute how amazing it would have been if everyone had their cell phone cameras out during the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the fall of the Walls of Jericho, the construction of the pyramids, the battle of Waterloo. For the first time in history, everyone can be involved in documenting our society, and our times. In a hundred years, history students will know us because they will be able to look into our eyes, and more importantly they will be able to see the world through our eyes. That is the job of the photographer: To capture this moment in time. the more shutters going of the better, the more people sitting in front of their computers manipulating an image to better convey a thought or feeling the better.

Occupy Protester in L.A. 2011

view my website daviddefino.com
buy my prints at Deviant Art
buy accessories with my photos
follow me on twitter