I saw Don althaus' piece on Digital Photography and had to reply to it. I am a third year Photomedia student in Perth Western Australia and have a keen interest in the area of Post-Photography ie, the digital age. Ihave quoted sections of the article for the benefit of those who havn't seen it. My comments begin with the > symbol. Hope this starts some healthy discussion.

As this student read through the description of how the image was made, his mood went quickly from anticipation through disappointment to crestfallen. The image he was so taken with had been assembled in a computer using components from seven different photographs. The photograph appeared on one page and the "how it was made" description was several pages later. He said he had been tricked by both the magazine and the "photographer." He went on to say that the scene as presented in the magazine never existed in reality and should not have been presented in a photographic context.

>The fact that a scene in an image never really existed is irrelevant >in Photography. Unless of course you subscribe to the school of >thought which claims that a photograph is a representation of truth. >Every photograph is subject to the 'filter' the photographer aplies >to the image, the lens/position/moment of exposure and of course the >cropping of the image. Any image, whether digitally manipulated or >not, is someone elses version of an event which may or may not have >happened, just as a journalists account of an event is clouded by >perspective/culture/class etc.

This is not the first time this debate has come up in my classes and the general sentiment has always been that digital imaging is different from photography and there should be some way to identify an image that has been assembled digitally as opposed to a "pure" photograph. As is the case so many times, the students are absolutely right. There should be a way to identify digital composites.

>What then is the difference between a digital composite photograph >of a scene involving five separate elements intended to make a >statement about an event or a culture, and a photo essay which, >through ommission or inclusion of various elements, makes exacly the >same statement? The medium is different, I would have to agree, but >the real issue here is representation. We as photographers have to >realise our partiality and get over this notion that we are >recorders of truth... because we aren't. All we can do is represent >what we see.

First, we have to stop calling digital imaging- the assembly of an image in a computer- "digital photography." Digital imaging is not photography and photography is certainly not digital imaging. While there is some crossover here- we can present photographs in a digital environment and we can present digital images through photo-style printing- there are a number of major differences. This is not to say one is "better" than the other, just that they are different. Second, we have to begin to differentiate between digital imaging and photography from a fundamental standpoint. This is slightly different from simply not calling digital imaging digital photography. It is making the differentiation between the scene as we saw it and a scene as we would like it to be.

>You've said it here without realising it: "the differentiation >between the scene as we saw it and a scene as we would like it to >be." but you've missed out one word, it should read "the >differentiation between the scene as we saw it and a scene as we >would like it to be seen." All photography is representing the scene >as we would like people to see it, how we want people to see it >usually coincides with how we 'see' it ourselves. The most important >thing to remember is that how I see it will always be different o >how you see it.

Photography is about the subject, **what the photographer saw in that subject as it existed in reality and what was so compelling that it had to be photographed.** To **alter, add or delete elements of that subject is to present the subject as the photographer wanted to see it, not as it existed in its reality.** Digital imaging is about reforming and reshaping the subject as we would have liked to have seen it.

>Once again you're claiming that the photographer only makes pictures >of reality, this simply isn't true. What is just outside of frame is >often as important is what is inside in making an image. Every image >a photographer makes he/she must decide what to include and what to >leave out. People are moved around, asked to pose or to act for the >camera, without the knowledge of the viewer, if this doesn't >constitute reforming and reshaping the subject then there must be a >very fine line truth and fantasy.

Third, we have to develop a way to identify those digitally assembled images as digital images. One idea is attached to this e-mail. This small emblem or logo could be either floated on the image and printed with it (the background color could be made transparent so it would be unintrusive as possible) or it could be printed with a caption line. If we don't take steps now to set this differentiation, it is possible that photography will simply become fodder for the digital imagers. At its extreme, a "digital photographer" could get a number of stock images, a copy of PhotoShop and assemble his photographs without ever having to make a single exposure. While this does seem extreme, there has been an explosion in the "royalty-free, restriction-free" stock photo market. This is not to say that a photograph can't be made with an all-digital system. It is the presentation of the photograph that is the key here. If the scene is presented as it was originally photographed by the photographer with only enough processing to make it look as good on the screen as possible, it still falls in the realm of photography. If there are elements added or deleted that alter the scene as it was photographed, then it is a digital image. Again, this is not to say one is "better" that the other, simply different.

>What about cropping? Or contrast/colourbalance and dodging and >burning in the darkroom? Do these alter "reality"?

While you may feel that this applies only to digital composites, it certainly also applies to those time-honored darkroom techniques like negative sandwiching, air brushing, pin registration mask printing, etc. These were used in the past but have fallen out of favor with the development of sophisticated digital imaging systems.

Finally, this is certainly not an anti-digital statement and should not be taken that way. Digital imaging certainly has its place in the world of visual expression and needs to start establishing itself apart from photography. If it doesn't, both digital imaging and photography will suffer.

>Digital techniques are simply an extension of the already existing >image culture of the west, and teach a valuable lesson that has >taken far too long to be learned: All imaces are someone elses point >of view, never believe that an image, digital or otherwise, is a >window into truth.

I welcome your comments.

Paul Langmead. rooboy_69@yahoo.com

-- Paul Langmead (rooboy_69@yahoo.com), June 22, 2000

Answers

If you are talking about creativity and art, I think this whole argument is a waste of time, and is basically a re-hash of the painting vs. photography argument.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), June 22, 2000.

Why must we "...develop a way to identify those digitally assembled images as digital images"? This is only another attempt to categorize and define what constitutes "a photograph." As such, it is just another extension of the brouhaha that surrounded the photographs of Henry Peach Robinson. This type of controversy has been going on now for about a century. What's the point? What's the difference between a digitally assembled photograph and one assembled in the darkroom? Jerry Uelsman? Joel Peter Witkin? Assembled photographs. Yeah, they do it in a darkroom - so what? Working the image on a computer is no less work than assembling it in a darkroom. Only different. Why aren't you so pedantic about labeling photographs assembled in a wet darkroom?

"Photography is about the subject." Really? Is this a universal definition? I think photographs are about light. So did Man Ray.

This whole subject is stupid, over hashed, contributes nothing to or about photographs or photography in general - and is usually put forth as a subject of serious concern by those who's definition of photography is so limited and narrow because they can't imagine what a photograph might be - only what they've been taught it should be.

Let's "define" our way to better photographs. Yeah, that's the way to do it. Photographs that meet certain definitions will certainly be better. Vapid, vapid, vapid....boring...boring...zzzzzzzzz....... Huh? Oh, pardon me. This has put me nearly to sleep.

-- steve (s.swinehart@worldnet.att.net), June 22, 2000.

There are those who talk about photography and what it should be those who do it and exchange information. Pat

-- pat krentz (patwandakrentz@aol.com), June 22, 2000.

Remember that there are basically two kinds of photographic images. Those made to record something as closely to the "real world" as possible, and those created for artistic purposes. Forensic, scientific and journalism are examples of the former. Almost everything else (some exceptions) are the latter. How the image is generated - film, digital or other - is irrelevant. How it is represented to the world is the issue. The only real problem is if a processed image such as one composited from multiple images is presented as a single image representing the real world. You are then passing something off as what it is not. That is fraud. Even if a manipulated image gives a better representation of what you saw than the raw image, it is not what was recorded. It is necessary to identify it as a "digitally processed image" or whatever fits. Other than misrepresentation, anything goes. Its the image that counts.

-- Richard Newman (rnewman@snip.net), June 23, 2000.

There are many threads in the "Philosophy of Photography" section that have dealt with this very issue. The most relevant one is probably this. I suggest you check them out to avoid going over old ground.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), June 26, 2000.

i believe simply that photography is an art. art is the capture of emotion. whether that is derived from a piece of film, a memory card, a 3.5" floppy disk, or 'manipulated', even *generated* by a computer, is moot. art is expression and over-education may cloud your personal expression.

-- Syrophenikan (Syro@wrecked.net), August 06, 2000.