Let's get digital

Before I begin I would like to say that this blog is not a debate about ‘film vs digital,’ which in my opinion is an endless and time-consuming debate not different from debating ‘girls vs boys’.

At the end of the day, all that matters is what you want done! The question to ask would be, ‘what result do you want?’

Lately, I have begun to feel quite annoyed with the question, “have you gone digital yet?” (though I am guilty of having asked the question myself).

Film cameras and digital cameras may be used for similar purposes, but they are two different forms of media, and they each do different things better.

The only reason that the digital medium is more popular than film is because of its accessibility - not everyone is a skilled user of film.

Photography, unlike other art forms, hasn’t been around for thousands and thousands of years, and the criticism that it faced at the beginning from painters and artists alike was not only that it was an art form that relied on a machine but also how could something that was accessible to so many people be admired as an art form.

After all, not everyone can paint a beautiful painting or compose a beautiful piece of music.

I'm only attempting is to draw your attention to the similarities between what artists felt about photography at its inception and anxieties that people (including myself) have today about the digital medium.

Are the advancements in digital technology and programs like ‘photoshop’ taking away from the art of photography, are they redefining photography as we know it or are we witnessing the birth of a new art form?

Of course there is no rulebook about what constitutes the art of photography. But doesn’t the process behind the creation of an image matter or just the end result?

I can’t comment on what makes a good photograph because for me it’s about a connection, an experience, a way to understand myself better based on my emotional response.

But when I look at a photograph now, I can’t help but wonder just how much digital manipulation or enhancement (whichever way you want to look at it, because there is a fine line between the two) went into it. I know of people who make images solely on the computer by cutting and pasting.

Some of the images that we see in magazines today have been created just like that.

Of course not every ‘digitally enhanced’ image is ‘enhanced’ to this degree and I’m not saying it’s wrong. But I don’t think it is apart of the world of photography.

Has the art of photography been corrupted by enhancements in digital technology? Is it increasingly becoming about who can better use ‘photoshop’? Or are these the fears of someone afraid of change?

I would feel better if they called it a new art form – a new way of creating an image.