  |
|
|
As I write this in August of 1998, I fully expect that in just a few short years this essay will become badly dated. The principles, however, that man is slow to accept new technology, and to even have an aversion to it, will remain intact and will have taken a new form. That is the exciting part! DIGITAL ISSUES AND CONCERNS By Robert H. Hughes This is an exciting time in the history of image making. With the rapid advancement of image making technology, issues and choices may seem completely overwhelming. Which method is right for me? How much will this whole process cost? Is it permanent? Is it a Photograph? Who will understand and benefit from what? Where do I begin? There are many unanswered and perplexing questions. At this point let me say that unanswered questions are not reason enough to not embrace a new way of looking at something! Questions are great, but don't let questions about process instill a negative value judgment system. Before knowing which decisions were to be made about our own personal image making process, or how we would conduct business, we managed to learn while remaining active and positive. This forward thinking approach is what enabled us to become proficient in our chosen profession. In other words, as novices we became effective visual communicators by blindly accepting new methods of working which had yet to be revealed! A large part of the present digital dilemma is that we are being asked to blindly accept a new type of technology. We are content with present methods so this may seem like starting over. That's it! We are being asked to reach outside the box/lines/comfort zone! Stretching outside the comfort zone does not always feel comfortable! Yet it was only by moving beyond comfort zones that, in the past, produced real growth! Intimidation, lack of knowledge, fear of the unknown, lack of time and many other factors, can prevent us from being the beneficiaries of currently available viable options. It is, however, through these new methods that we will be able to become even more effective visual communicators. What it all boils down to is that we have become complacent with old habits and methods. The big question is; "what is wrong with how we do, what we do? " The answer to this question is "working smarter will always be a smarter way of working." To this, let me add, those that continue to do the things that they do, will never do anything else. AND, those that never think a new thought, will always think the same old thoughts." Having said this let me respectfully try to address some of the common digital concerns.
IS A DIGITAL IMAGE A PHOTOGRAPH? The battle goes on and on about what a Photograph is! Since the official announcement of Photography in 1839, the debate about what Photography is has been in place. This debate, in all likelihood, will never end. There will be opinions about this as long as there are two Photographers. I'm not sure that the debate over what a Photograph is and isn't, is one iota closer to a universally accepted standard definition in all that time. My opinion is that this debate is not reason enough to not use digital for a purpose that may benefit you personally or your business. If you can profit from digital technology, why shouldn't you? More importantly, if the client can be the recipient of a vastly superior product, why wouldn't we as visual communicators offer our very best?
Let me address those who believe themselves to be a "purist." This definition is about as hotly debated as "what is a Photograph?" A purist as defined by Ansel Adams and Edward Weston through the f64 group and resulting manifesto, states that only pictures made with large format cameras working at small f-stops, f64 and beyond may be considered to be of any "real" value. The manifesto also states that the ability of the camera to produce extremely sharp photographs, from the near to far limits, is the outstanding feature of Photography. Only black and white pictures made with archival materials are "real." Weston states that pictures that have been cropped even one centimeter have destroyed the original scene and cannot be considered as pure. Weston also believed that negatives that were enlarged beyond the "contact" printing stage had lost photographic data and must be considered as something other than purely photographic in nature. There are other contributing factors to this debate. Placing any foreign matter on the surface of the print such as retouching or spotting dyes negates its photographic value. Placing anything in front of the lens during exposure was considered as altering the original scene, again, poor vision. A double exposure was seen as unclear vision or at best, a random pattern happenstance. Posed pictures are not considered real or "pure!" Color is not archival, and is not accepted! Photographs made with anything other than natural light are not considered "real." Photographs that are not mounted to strict archival museum standards are not considered "pure." Certain types of lighting were considered poor technique by Adams and Weston and as such, did not qualify as "pure" photography. Methods to show dimensionality such as near-to-far relationships were an important natural way to produce the illusion of three dimensions. Titles other than those purely documenting the scene were considered as fake, contrived and not "pure." The f64 group would have had an opinion about digital photography. Actually Ansel Adams is well documented as saying that his one big regret is that he wouldn't be around for the digital revolution! Ansel discovered that one of his posters, a duotone, contained a tonal range superior to his own fiber-based black and white prints. Yes Ansel discovered the unique possibilities of stretching beyond his own comfort zone system! While reading the "purist" comments, it seems to me that the silly notion that digital methods define the operator as something less than responsible is silly. I am sure that we can all agree that the definition of a "purist," as time rolls on, while remaining personal, will likely gather new and different criteria. Not only do we have to consider the physical characteristics and methodology of photography, but we must also take into consideration the moral dilemma that the power of digital technology presents. What is the responsibility of the digital operator and resulting photograph? Should a manipulated digital photograph look as if it is documentary, in nature, when in fact, it is not? Should a digital photograph imitate a "pure" photograph? One of the first real powers of the digital revolution is in the ability of press/news photographers to create and present images that are seconds old! This is an incredible process. Most reporters have had digital cameras for quite some time! Are these digital pictures a legitimate substitute for film based photographs? Is the digital reporter any less "pure" than when film was used? Should digital reportage be banned or governed? One of the answers to this question may be that we should demand that all digital reportage remain 'pure" in content. Digital reportage should not be manipulated! Working in this fashion would somewhat guarantee the integrity of the photograph. I believe that we are all beyond demanding that digital should not be used in reportage. We as newspaper and magazine clients would never be satisfied with the old way of visual reportage. We want pictures NOW! We have learned to expect quick efficient methods of digital reportage. As clients of visuals, we expect the best that the industry has to offer. As producers of visuals, we should adopt the same attitude. Our clients desire the same quick, efficient and positive approach. We now begin to understand the digital possibilities! We as digital operators may now offer images that go beyond anything that we have ever been able to do before. With cameras that rival film, laptop computers and various methods of high quality printing, we are able to service our clients in an exciting new fashion. Who benefits the most? Right, our clients! Would you deny the client? Should a digital photograph peacefully co-exist in the same newspaper where there are film-based photographs? By now I hope you think this question sounds silly! Should a Press or News based Photographer be denied access to international photographic competitions because a digital device was involved in the creation of an image? This is an extremely important question! Before you give the answer, allow me to respectfully submit that if you say yes, you will be placing a restriction on the time and quality of the images you receive! Is what we may call the ability to receive "instant visual reportage," worth placing in jeopardy because of our insecure need to classify the image making process? It is one thing for active professionals to be held accountable for the profession of image creation and the resulting jargon, process and technical terminology, but quite another to purposely jeopardize professional progress. For the latter, all who participate in that practice will be held accountable. So, the question remains; should a reporter who used a digital device to create an image, be disqualified from international press competitions? What if the digital image is not manipulated? What if it is? How would anyone really know? Should the digital image be made to look like a "pure" one? What is "Pure?" Who will be the governing faction of what is "Pure?" Should "Pure" pictures be the only type allowed to be created? Let's attempt to examine the issue of whether a digital image should be manipulated to resemble a purely classical photographic process. My own personal opinion on this matter is that it would be dishonest to manipulate a digital image with the sole purpose of making it look like a "documentary!" That would be counterproductive! This does not rule out that the digital image could already look and feel like something that was created by an already established classical photographic process. Maybe this is the crux of the issue! Maybe we are concerned about something that is actually beneficial! If the result from a digital camera can be construed as "responsible" visual reporting, then that should be the end of it! What are we concerned about? The possibility that the image could be manipulated? The image has always been manipulated in some way or another. The Zone System manipulates the image form beginning to end! Could it be that the maker of the digital image has some unfair advantage over the rest of the profession? If that is the case, then that very statement makes the strongest argument for digital imaging! Think about this! Knowledge will give you the fairest and most viable option to your own personal future! I think that we can at least agree that the digital image reporter should be allowed to compete for accolades that exist within the profession. If the digital image maker is excluded, and did not continue to work digitally, just think about how that would negatively affect all the people of the world who count on the benefits of digital technology, including yourself! Exclusion of this kind should never happen! Likewise, someone who chooses to utilize digital imaging techniques should not be limited, restricted or excluded from professional accolades. This is discrimination of the worst kind! It sends a message that the benefits derived from new technology should be discouraged! This type of message will not help forge the future of the image making community! If we find brave souls who are willing to venture forth into new worlds, then they should be applauded! Anyone can be satisfied with the status quo. It takes a special kind of vision to embrace the future!
Let's move to another hotly contested issue!
What if digital retouching was used in the making of an otherwise standard photographic image? At what point would a standard image become digital? This is an ambiguous question. Would an image become digital after having some certain percent digital artwork? Is it digital in spirit? Is it digital in feeling? Is it digital if the maker intended it to be digital from the beginning? What if an image-maker begins working in a non-digital format and then converts it to digital? You can't have it both ways. Either it is, or it isn't! My feeling is that if anything digital was used, it is a digital image! This is common sense! When you peel a Banana, it is still a Banana. Digital is digital! How can it be partially digital? The Banana was not a partial Banana until it was peeled. If it is partially digital, should there be a partially digital category? This is getting complicated and just a little silly. To put it another way, if an image has been digitally retouched, this means that at some point in the life of the image, it has been converted to binary code. (I.e., 0's and 1's) It is at this point that the image has clearly become digital. This is plain, clear logic! If the image is digital in transition, then logic tells us that the final result couldn't have been achieved without utilizing digital technology. You may call this type of image anything you like, but the fact remains that an image converted to digital is digital! Should these partially digital images be allowed in the "pure" categories? The 'pure" categories are the ones where "dye" and "art" work abound! It that what you call "pure?" Do you realize that "art" (art?) work will age at a completely disproportional rate to the rest of the print? Digital retouching where a new negative is produced, or printed from a file directly to the printer, will not only save time and money, but will enable the resulting print to age at a globally consistent rate. If we were now able to produce a digitally retouched product that will age more consistently, why wouldn't we offer this to our clients? The answer is obvious, we would! If we decide to utilize digital retouching, why would there be a question as to whether it is legal in print competitions? This is silly! Many of the prints from major labs utilize digital retouching in competition prints. These prints have been awarded major accolades but the makers of these prints fail to disclose that they were digital images! The makers of many of these images don't even do the work themselves. They just turn in a negative and request the lab to print them a winner! Wouldn't it be better to reward someone who learned how to do the work? Something else, isn't it about time that we give awards to the labs and retouchers that actually printed, mounted and retouched these prints? When will we ever give credit to those who really produced the prints?
Personal thoughts: A digitally enhanced print is a digital image, and as such could belong to a digital category. This would create a problem to which there would be no easy solution. If the lab has done anything with a computer, then this is a digital image! If one centimeter of the print is digital, it is a digital image! It just doesn't make sense to say that a print doesn't look like it was computer enhanced, part of the beauty of digital enhancement is that the technique becomes invisible. How could competitions ever deal with this? How would a print jury ever know if a computer had been involved, and, to what extent? This should not be a criterion for print judging!
Continuing the issue! Should digital have it's own category? Lemme see, hmm, well why doesn't the Polaroid transfer/list/emulsion/whatever, have it's own category? None of these Polaroid techniques establish the result as a photograph and they are all allowed in photographic competitions everywhere! Why, you know why. The various Polaroid techniques allow us to offer our clients more creative options. We should welcome all creative options. The people who learn these techniques are able to offer more in the way of image service period! Should digital have its own jury? Polaroid's don't! Master image-makers are well informed to make decisions based on their own good judgment. If it looks great, it probably is great! Panels have already been dealing with digitally enhanced prints as labs have preformed digital retouching on standard competition prints for quite some time. We now see that every technique within the image making profession doesn't have to neatly fit into a convenient label. It can still be highly effective as a creative tool. We wouldn't dream of excluding creative options, especially on purpose. Back to this should digital have it's own category issue. If digital did have it's own category would it then be allowed to compete with the rest of the images for the top awards? Isn't the real issue to isolate and punish digital work as something that doesn't quite belong? As something that doesn't fit the mold? As something "outside" the box? Personally, I believe that creating a separate category undermines the technological process of image advancement. Whatever happened to judging the image before you? Image technique should not be mentioned. Images should be judged for what is there and not how it got there! Judges that have been instructed to judge a print for what is there really are not allowed to speculate as to how a print was made! The reason is clear. If judges were allowed to interject personal preferences, panels could not be the slightest bit objective. Objectivity is already hard enough without trying to decide if a particular technique was involved in the making of an image. This is not an accepted approach to print judging! Robert Hughes NOTE: It is now almost a year and a half later October 19, 1999. I now believe that digital SHOULD have it's own jury so that the ability of the individual can be honestly appraised. In many cases, judges that have no real idea of advanced digital techniques have not been able to detect inferior digital craftsmanship. I also believe that in a very short time this will change and that my original statement will remain valid. How long before this happens? I don't know!
Is Digital somehow unfair? Digital is only unfair to those who plan to do the same things that they have always done! To people who are not excited by new methods of excellence! To people who want to not have to be forced into taking time to learn how to become more creative and be able to offer their clients a more innovative product! Digital is unfair to people set in their ways. It is unfair to those who deep down inside are still intimidated by the computer. Some of these are real fears, but fortunately there are schools and people who are willing to share their knowledge and experiences.
Does a person who learns digital technology have an unfair advantage? The answer to this should be obvious. Let me answer the question with another question. Does the person who learns standard Darkroom techniques have an unfair advantage? The answer should never be; "those who learn, are punished!" Superior technology coupled with talent and hard work will always seem to be an advantage. This is the most compelling evidence for gaining a swift understanding of all available creative options. Actually we have learned to count on proficient standard and digital darkroom techniques to aid us in the "image chain." We could all learn more about what occurs in the image "chain." My feeling here is when professional image-makers learn, the profession, as a whole, is in a higher state of learning. Maybe many of these issues have surfaced because future digital image-makers will have to be responsible for more of the image "chain." This in itself can be a bit overwhelming, but is not a reason not to learn. One of the reasons that I personally, have been able to adapt to software like Photoshop, is that I invested time and money learning standard darkroom procedures. Photoshop contains algorithms that behave very similar in nature to standard darkroom techniques. One would not have to know standard darkroom technique to become successfully involved with Photoshop. Those that already understand darkroom terminology will find Photoshop a welcome addition. If becoming more knowledgeable about ones profession gives one an unfair advantage, then so be it! I believe that it is by understanding current technology that we give ourselves the best chance to contribute and elevate our industry.
Some Final Thoughts: This entire essay is mostly dealing with concerns that are already ancient! Software like PhotoShop, has been in existence since 1988. Commercial Photographers, for the most part, have embraced this technology from the beginning. Wedding and Portrait Photographers in general have resisted digital techniques far too long. A disturbing public perception of the photographer who resists current technology has begun to take shape. This perception will cost business and affect personal futures. Classroom instruction utilizes the use of pixels and monitors. The result is that students will only understand how to do live and do business through this type of technology. Digital is not the enemy! Complications will surface from isolating and bashing digital, and this will not produce a viable, desired, successful, professional working environment. Complications are usually complicated! Digital does not need to be isolated or separated. Actually, digital needs to be embraced, understood, and integrated. Digital techniques offer real hope for the future of our industry. Digital technology has enabled the image producer to work in a manner never before available to the image making profession. We should be concerned only when new technology derogates and deteriorates the quality of an existing profession! This is not the case with digital! Digital offers the promise of increased resolution, permanent color, an improved environment, infinite creative options and an extensive saving of time! Besides the ability to be infinitely more creative, time translates directly into dollars! What could be better than being more creative and earning more money? This is an ideal situation. If you like win/win, this is it! Image making is the greatest profession on earth! I have been able through hard work, talent, perseverance and most of all, the willingness of the great image-makers who proceeded me to give so much to their profession. I could never say enough about the "spirit" of those image-makers who had that special vision to move mountains. This is a profession like no other! There will always be other mountains to move and paths to travel, so it is, then, that movers of mountains, seekers of light, will move down yet another path. Respectfully submitted by: Robert H Hughes |
Contact Robert Hughes Photography at: (614) 488-2769 / roberthughes@ameritech.net Copyright ©1997-2006, Robert H. Hughes and the Hughes Center for Creative Imaging The Robert Hughes Photography Web site and its entire contents Copyright 1997-2006 under license from Robert H. Hughes. All Rights Reserved |