A Note about Photography

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 in: News

I was talking to an old college friend the other day, and the subject of photography came up as it often does between us. Cesar Altamirano and I were design colleagues in college, and both shared a passion for the power of imagery. He probably put about as much effort into his photography minor that I dedicated to my Japanese degree, and has since managed to integrate photography into his job at a well-known design firm. 80% of his facebook posts are of photos he’s taken. He does some great work, you should check out his website: www.onigun.com

Being so passionate about it, Cesar always has something interesting to say about the field. I once asked him why he was so diligent in documenting everything around him. His response went something like this:

“I have just a handful of photos of my parents when they were my age, and none of my grandparents. None. I don’t want that for my grandkids, I want them to know what kind of life me and Ann (his fiancee at the time, now his wife) led. I want the future generations to know more about us than we know about our grandparents and great grandparents. Photos are my medium for facilitating that.”

Some photographers are adamant about their preferences, be it digital vs. film, their preferred brand, or even lens types. I’m a sucker for passionate debate but I try to stay neutral in these subjects so I can better appreciate each side’s argument. When I told Cesar I had ditched my dSLR in favor of something more compact for my upcoming travels, he balked at the concept. “The main reason I go anywhere is to take photos; I would lug my main camera around anywhere, it’s worth the hassle.” As our conversation turned to the art of capturing light, Cesar began to rail against film, and how it was on its way out. “Can you imagine going on a trip and shooting film? You’d have all that extra bulk to carry around and then you’d have to find a place to develop it, and you’re limited to how much film you can carry; I can fit thousands of photos on my memory cards which weigh less than a single roll of film, and I can even choose to delete them in the camera if I wanted to.”

He went on: “Film is so clunky and expensive, and processing it takes so much time and money and uses caustic chemicals. Digital media is so cheap it’s practically free, there’s no excuse NOT to be a photographer anymore.” I begin to wonder about Cesar’s motivation for advocating against film; perhaps its prohibitive expense is what robbed him of so many family photos.

But surely there’s a downside to the convenience of digital photography. The expense of the film made photos something precious; something we had to think about before we open the shutter; is this moment worthy of the expense of development? What settings should I use to ensure the best exposure? It served to make people more cautious, more conscious of their craft. Maybe I’m romanticizing it a bit, but it used to require quite a bit of skill and experience to properly develop photos. Compare a print made by a master photographer and to a reprint and you can tell the difference. In film photography, taking the shot is only part of the process. Photo development is an art unto itself, and it’s slowly dying out, or at least becoming a rare skill.

Don’t get me wrong, digital photography is an amazing thing. It provides us with instant feedback and lets us take countless photos from different angles and with different settings. Digital processing takes our abilities to edit photos far beyond what we were capable of doing in a dark room; it has emerged as an art of its own. Whereas film photography limited us to shoot within our budgets, digital has freed us to play as much as we want. Even the initial cost of a good camera has dropped within the means of the casual photographer. All of a sudden, everyone is a “photographer.”

Cameras are getting better and better, but what is even more of a paradigm shift is the cost is rapidly decreasing;  the market is flooded with cameras so cheap, Cesar’s assertion of “there’s no excuse anymore” rings quite true. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a cellphone these days without a multi-megapixel camera built into it, which is the source of a majority of amateur photos and films floating around the internet. In this connected modern world, we not only get to instantly see the photos we take, but we can just as quickly share them with our friends or even strangers on the internet. Sharing images has joined text messaging as a replacement for the modern letter, and as with photo development, much of the art is lost–preserved only by a few stubborn adherents. Digital brings photography to the masses, but the masses aren’t exactly sharing their most poignant moments, they’re sharing EVERYTHING.

So I guess this criticism reveals a slightly stuck-up, selfish reason for not gushing over digital photography. You can buy an entry-level dSLR body and a few decent lenses for less than $1,000 US. Everywhere I go, I see more and more people walking around with these prosumer cameras set to “Automatic.” In other words, I see people walking around with far nicer cameras than I can afford, with no idea how to use them, and it makes me annoyed and a bit jealous!

Our media experience is saturated with amateur photography. As such, photography is no longer solely in the realm of artists, it’s now a common form of communication. I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing everyone is capturing moments from their lives and sharing it with each other. It’s just the little elitist in me that says “I was a photographer before everyone started doing it,” or “I used to bicycle everywhere before everyone and their mom bought a fixie,” or “I knew that band before they sold out.” Don’t act like you’ve never felt that way.

On one hand, I’m always eager to promote a skill or craft I’ve grown to love. The more people I see yo-yoing, climbing, slacklining etc, the happier I am, but sometimes I can’t help but wish it were me fumbling with a Mark II and an L-series lens. Sue me for being a little selfish sometimes.

---