SPECIAL REPORT:
The State of Photography Today: The Digital Revolution

There is a fierce debate raging over the effects the Digital Revolution has had on traditional photography. While some argue that the introduction of digital imaging technology in the 1980s has completely altered the medium and had significant unintended consequences, most notably in the way a photograph establishes truth, others completely disagree, countering that nothing of significance has occurred – the changes wrought by the invention of digital cameras are purely technical and have no significant impact on the final product. To the former group nothing less than the meaning of truth is at stake. To those at the other end of the spectrum however digital imaging is nothing more than an extension of traditional photography, its effects minimal since they claim photography never told the truth in the first place.

To explore these issues in depth we have assembled a pair of experts in the field. Cynthia Donohue is a writer for Photography Digest, a quarterly journal that promotes traditional photographic methods, and David Douglas is a media analyst for the Modern Association of Photographers and Digital Imagers, a liberal think-tank based in Manhattan. They have prepared a point/counterpoint argument that we hope will be helpful to our readers in spelling out the issues at stake, placing them in an interesting and understandable context.

As preface to my argument let me offer a brief imperative that I hope will calm the nervous among you: RELAX, the sky is not falling. I offer these words in reaction to the warnings of those conservative critics who will lead you to believe the end of the world is at hand: that the digital revolution is a harbinger of evil, ushering in the demise of truth.

Despite the squalling of these Chicken Littles, the reality is far different than their dire imaginings. Know this: a photograph is a photograph is a photograph. Whether captured by means of a traditional camera, a Polaroid or a digital camera, the differences between images are minimal and the concerns proffered by the experts about the loss of the meaning of truth is unmerited since it is impossible to lose what never existed in the first place. Photography has never offered pure, objective, unvarnished truth – that notion is myth; one that I will attempt to dispel for you.

Some traditionalists like the author William J Mitchell claim “digital images differ as profoundly from a traditional photograph as does a photograph from a painting,” while Susan Sontag insists that a traditional photograph is “a trace, something stenciled directly off the real.” I must respectfully disagree – a photograph, no matter how it has been captured, is far from an objective replication of reality – there are simply too many human acts involved in the process for it to be considered objective. Rather than a trace of the real, a photograph is much closer to a painting that represents the personal vision of the artist, since the photographer, like the artist before, selects a moment in time and, after deciding it is important enough to capture, snaps the shutter, exposing the film stock. In the process he deliberately chooses what he will include in his frame and what he will leave out, and he may continue snapping the shutter until he captures the scene exactly as he has imagined it to be – all the while being limited only by the amount of film he has at his disposal. The very fact that each of these decisions is consciously made by the photographer proves that it cannot be considered a subjective art form.

Further, those conscious decisions are only one small part of the photography process, for we know that unlike a digital image, which is available for viewing immediately, a traditional photograph must be processed. It is precisely during this development process that one finds a boundless opportunity for manipulation.

The conservative critics bemoan the fact that digital imaging technology and software applications like Photoshop have made it impossible to authenticate a digital image since manipulation is achieved so easily, yet this fear ignores the long history of photography, which shows that images have always been subject to manipulation. The standard procedure a photographer follows in his darkroom is no different than digital manipulation: while the options might not be as easy or boundless as those available to a digital imager using Photoshop, by the very nature of the process manipulation must occur, and therefore seeing is NOT believing. For example the photographer chooses the amount of cropping to be performed, potentially eliminating certain portions of the original image. He then chooses the paper grade and the length of time he keeps the paper in the chemical solution. Next he may decide whether to make the image lighter or darker (dodging/burning), or whether to use a double exposure, and so on, each step compounding the manipulation that came before. I find it incredible that the very critics who rail against digital manipulation always ignore these seemingly innocuous techniques. Overlooking such a fundamental detail seems to suggest that what is at play here is not an honest warning of the unintended technological consequences of a new medium, but a disingenuous conservative bias against technological advancement, and that is a shame.

Now certainly I do not deny that there are differences between traditional photography and digital photography, but I suggest that the differences are purely technical in nature and cannot affect the ability of an image by itself to tell the truth. History shows that technology always alters the status quo, and unless we move with the time we find ourselves stuck in the past, pining for the way life used to be.

As compared to photographs, fine details of a digital image are approximated to the grid, and tonal gradients are broken up into discrete steps. Enlargement of a continuous tone photograph will reveal more detail and result in a fuzzier and grainer photograph, as compared to the digital image whereby enlargement will not reveal anything new, for the pixels retain their crisp shapes and colors which simply become more prominent. Copying of digital images results in an exact replica of the original digital image due to the fact that discrete states can be replicated precisely, as compared to the analog photograph whose continuous spatial and tonal variation is not precisely replicable. Copies of an analog photograph result in lowered quality of the photograph.

Reworking and manipulation of analog photographs to produce new images is technically difficult and time consuming, as compared to the digital image whose information can be manipulated rapidly and easily by means of computer, simply by substituting new digits for those previously used. Reusable disks used for digital imaging are not only more alterable than chemically processed negatives used in analog photographs, but digital images can be modified before transmission on a computer, making detection of manipulation more difficult.

In regards to the concept of reality, if one views reality as something that occurred, then the analog photograph provides us with a standard of reality by recording a precise instant in time and linking it to the celluloid base of a negative, which serves as an original. With digital imaging however, light traces are turned into numbers and stored as binary I/O, yes/no responses at the point of capture, disconnecting the image from any relationship with the moment it describes, challenging any identifiable standard of reality.

Concepts of authenticity and originality differ between analog photographs and digital images, as authenticity suggests that images are unique, are produced by individuals, and that there is a difference between originals and copies. Analog photographs provide negatives, however the very nature of digital imaging involves the selection, transformation, mixing and assemblage of images by computer artists. These images have no unique negatives, and copies are distinguishable from the original only by their date.

As these conceptions of truth, authenticity, and originality have been challenged, ethical and legal problems have developed, and no where is this more apparent than in the field of Photojournalism, where image correction has become increasingly important. The practice of image correction has led normally trustworthy magazines and newspapers to engage in publishing images altered by editors and production personnel who can literally manipulate the already completed relationship between the photographer and his or her subject. This can be seen within publications such as National Geographic, who placed two pyramids at Giza closer together on a cover to better incorporate them into their layout design, or the European newspaper that published an altered image of a plane crash, and passed it off as a genuine press photograph. As compared to the analog photograph, there is no way to accurately determine what happens or has happened to a digital image, and should it be altered en route to its destination, there is no way to determine how the image was altered, determine if it was altered, or determine by whom.

As compared to the analog photograph and its negative, digital imaging has challenged the concept of ownership, as it is difficult to determine who owns a digital image when no negative exists as "proof". This factor, accompanied by the highly flexible boundaries between artist, photographer, editor, publisher and other production personnel makes protection of digital images by copyright law very difficult, if not impossible. Abusive contracts by media organizations have also emerged, with freelance photographers losing reproduction rights. Photographers are suffering from copyright infringement and losing control of their work. Lawsuits engaged in regarding infringement are difficult, as files can be copied and transmitted instantly, and no physically unique negative exists which can be examined for evidence of tampering.

Douglas suggests that the differences between traditional photography and digital imaging "are purely technical in nature and cannot affect the ability of an image by itself to tell the truth", while Donohue argues that truth is connected to a photograph’s authenticity, which “suggests that images are unique, are produced by individuals, and that there is a difference between originals and copies… whereas analog photographs provide negatives, the very nature of digital imaging involves the selection, transformation, mixing and assemblage of images by computer artists", and that digital images "have no unique negatives, and copies are only distinguishable from the original by their date".

So what is one to believe regarding the state of photography today? Our experts have expressed their views regarding the matter, with one believing digital imaging is simply an extension of traditional photography, whose effects are minimal since "photography never told the truth in the first place", and the other who believes "digital images are not, and should not be treated as, the equivalent of photographs".

Considering the significantly divergent opinions expressed here today, it seems that an agreeable conclusion regarding the state of photography will probably not be reached in the immediate future, and therefore the debate will surely rage on. It is our hope, however, that by providing our readers with this information, they may be more knowledgeable regarding the state of photography and those aspects of it that are causing such concern and controversy among experts in the field. Is seeing believing? Until such time that an accord can be reached on that fundamental question it seems our readers must continue to decide for themselves.