Analog and Digital Photography
Every era is defined by its own technology, and the photographer has no reason to turn their back on it and stubbornly insist on using a previous one. Although they are not obliged to follow every technological development, denying them and clinging to the past – apart from the practical problems this will certainly create – may also give them a somewhat quaint image, or even worse, may lead them to believe that this quaintness makes them more important than they really are. And this cannot help but have negative consequences on the quality of their photographic work.
Digital technology has brought to photography several undeniably positive developments, first and foremost the possibility of correcting technical errors after the fact, a possibility which is now almost unlimited and is still constantly improving. It has turned the process of organizing photographs into a pleasant game and opened incredible horizons for their use, while with the ability to produce identical copies it has relieved the photographer of the anxiety surrounding a single unique and precious negative. Finally, it has offered even the most ordinary computer user the ability to edit photographs to a degree that, a few years ago, was a privilege reserved only for the very few capable and trained “wizards” of the darkroom. At the same time it transformed the darkroom into a bright room and freed it from harmful chemicals and long hours of standing, and above all, it dramatically reduced the cost of producing photographs.
Personally, I would add three more beneficial aspects that can be credited to the advent of digital photography. First, it removed from photography the importance of the materiality of the photographic print paper, revealing it for what it truly is: a copy – especially now that a photograph can very well exist on a computer screen and be transmitted and shared without the mediation of any physical print. Second, it dispelled the myth of the uniqueness of prints, which, together with the above-mentioned materiality, some people were desperately trying to impose in order to assign them excessive monetary value. Now there is not one and only negative, nor a single print made by special hands, but countless identical copies that can be produced from the same file, which in turn can itself be reproduced indefinitely. Finally, the ability to intervene digitally in a convincing way has stripped photography of the power of the unshakable document that mistakenly accompanied its value. Quite simply, nowadays no one believes it absolutely, with the result that the photographer’s personal viewpoint and the magical plausibility of the photograph take the upper hand.
No one, however, can deny the negative side of digital technology. I believe, at least for now, that the balance tilts without doubt toward the positive side. It is nevertheless necessary to identify the negative points from the outset, so that we can be better prepared to face them. Its weakness lies in two key words that characterize the entire computer age: ease and verbosity. And because everything is done quickly, easily, and cheaply, everyone does everything without reason. Here, though, time itself will undertake the remedy. Both photographers and the public will soon learn to choose between the superficial and the essential. The difference lies in the fact that in the past, the difficulty of the process ensured, by itself, a first level of selection, an initial filtering. Someone who was devoted to photography and who followed its more demanding technical paths would at least be serious, if not capable and noteworthy.
All of this, of course, leads us back to the word that has always been the key in art – and not only in art – namely: selection. And in order to choose correctly, one must form criteria; and in order to form criteria, one must acquire knowledge and cultivate opinions. Perhaps, then, even the negative aspects of digital photography offer us an indirect gift: now that everything is easier and more accessible, the photographer must be more cultivated and think more sharply than before, in order to separate the wheat from the chaff – in their own photographs, and in those of others.
No one can avoid the dominant question regarding the comparative quality of the analog and digital process: which one ultimately gives the best technical results? In this case, the answers are rather obvious. Even today, it is extremely difficult for an untrained eye to distinguish differences between an analog and a digital print. Even if we were to assume that analog quality still wins by a clear margin, the speed with which digital technology is improving is such that it will outpace any comparative test. By the same logic, however, we might wonder why, for so many years, most photographers used small- or medium-format cameras while everyone knew that large-format cameras produced technically superior images. Perhaps what technical perfection gives you with one hand, it takes back with the other. Therefore, we are led once again to the key word: selection.
Finally, if we had to point out the basic technical differences between the old and the new technology – between the age of chemistry and that of electronics – we would say that the film has simply been replaced by the sensor, and the darkroom with its machines and chemicals has been replaced by the computer with its software and peripherals.
Platon Rivellis
Excerpt from his book Photography in the Digital Age
Published by Fotohoros Editions
photography
