There is a substantial portion of the old-school photographer population that absolutely reviles digital imagery. Not surprisingly, this bothers me.
On questions of aesthetics and artistic merit, digital images are no better or worse than analog photography or any other art form. Therefore, it must be something else.
I think that what bugs the digital-haters has to do with the photographer, not the image. An unmanipulated photograph is a certificate of authenticity that the photographer was there at that moment. This confers power or status to that person. Notice that the difference has nothing to do with what is in the image. It’s about ownership and the ghostly person that is just outside the image claiming ‘I was in the presence of this beautiful moment’ — and that makes a difference. A huge difference – all the difference – to some people.
Look at the picture below. It’s a Mannlicher-Carcano. Whoopee. Unless you are a gun fancier, you are already not interested.
Suppose I tell you that this is the gun that shot John Kennedy. Why does that change how you react to the picture? Because that gun is the one that killed a US president. That’s some serious power. But what you are looking at is not that gun. It’s a photograph of that gun. A bunch of colored pixels on your monitor. I expect you would get a much stronger impression if you were actually looking at the gun, in person, but something in our brains lets us get a bit of the same zing from a photograph as we do from the real thing. If I showed you a painting of this gun, it wouldn’t do it.
Now, I am going to tell you that the picture above is not really the exact gun that shot Kennedy. It’s the same model, same everything else, but it’s not that gun. Notice how that changes your reaction to the picture.
Below is the actual gun that shot Kennedy. This really is that gun. This is the one that did the deed.
I can do this same thatscene trick with most famous photographs. In Photoshop, I can patch together parts to make a picture in the same style and that is as beautiful as the original made by the famous photographer (setting aside arguments as to whether I am really that good). The difference lies not in the image, but in the conveyance of power or status to the person who can claim that “I was there in the presence of that beauty at that time.” This assignment of power is not in the picture; it has nothing to do with the image but everything to do with people’s sense of personal value, both their own and those on whom they confer respect.
In many religious faiths people worship reliquaries. These contain some minute remnant of a saint or holy object. They are intensely revered. Why? Not because of what they are (a bit of bone or wood) but because they were there.
This is not limited to religions; think of celebrity items such as Neil Young’s guitar, ‘Old Black’, or Nureyev’s dance slippers for which someone paid nearly $19,000.
I think, for many people, photographs are ‘bones’ from their past.
It’s not about the art, it’s about claims to experience. If that’s what matters to you in a photograph, then don’t go digital. If, on the other hand, your pictures are not about you but are about art, then digital is the more powerful tool.
I like both digital and analog, but (obviously) prefer, and choose to use, digital. Regardless, the only thing that should matter is the aesthetics of the finished work.
Coloring 