photos

A short time ago, I had an interesting discussion with a friend about photography. He had just bought a film-based camera (as opposed to a digital camera). It was a very nice SLR camera and he was able to get a number of additional attachments at a great price because the camera was discontinued. The company that made it had decided to focus on digital and abandon the film process (if I recall the explanation).

I asked him why he didn’t get a digital camera. The answer was not what I expected.

Take or Make?
My friend bought a film camera because he feels that digital photography is a little bit like cheating. To summarize the argument, it’s the ‘take vs make’ argument.

For some, an artist must take a photograph because the effect the image produces is partially rooted in the moment captured. A photograph represents a real experience and the person viewing the photograph has time to consider this fact while they (by proxy) experience the moment through the image. The photograph is, in some ways, a sensual experience in which the viewer imagines themselves as being “in” the photograph somehow.

For others, an artist is allowed to make the image by combining one or more photographic elements, created images and editing this into a composite whole. For these folks, the experience is not only rooted in the fact that a moment is captured in the photographic elements but also in the blurring, blending, additions or deletions that the artist made to create something “greater” than the individual parts.

Photography Reborn
In my travels, I came across a book called Photography Reborn by Jonathan Lipkin. I’ll admit to borrowing heavily from it as I had my take vs make discussion with my friend. It’s a good book that combines a series of essays by Lipkin with photographic examples of the ideas that he’s discussing.

Photography Reborn discusses the digital capture and manipulation of images. While it is nominally about digital photography, the real subject is the manipulation of the digital image and how this influences the meaning of the image. The book starts by covering general topics about digital photography. Following chapters cover the portrait, manipulation of the body, avatars (completely manufactured images of people), created/manipulated places, and created/manipulated moments. The book wraps up with a discussion of web cameras, blogging and the use of the internet to distribute images.

The Human Image
While there are chapters on created landscapes, the book focuses on the human image. In this, it is fascinating. An image from Aziz + Cucher’s Dystopia show is both fascinating and disturbing as the human form is constrain it in unnatural ways. Other images meld the natural and the human, such as the two from Daniel Lee’s Manimal series are captivating as they meld human and animal forms.

Thus, while the book has essays and images of digitally altered/created landscapes, the parts that made this book worthwhile were the ones that focused on the human…or, more accurately, took the human form and played with it in some significant way.

Before I read the book, I tended to be in the “Take, not Make Photographs” camp. Afterward, I think the take vs make split is a false dichotomy. Photography is still the capture of a moment in space, but the digital manipulation can add meaning to the image that we cannot ever create with a taken photography.

If you are interested in photography or digital image work, you may want to find a copy of this book. The essays are well written and the photographs are very good company for the discussion.

{ 2 comments }