Some of the comments on the recent threads got me to thinking. I think that while some may not openly embrace digital capture there is a greater acceptance, on the whole, than there has been at any time since it's inception.
I would like to open this discussion of advances in photography a bit further if I may. Taking things a little farther, I think that we as still photographers take a very limited view of photography from our own little corner of the world. The reason that I say this is that with todays technology we can take things far beyond where they are now.
I personally believe that movies (film based) and video (digital) are both photographic processes and that in some ways they relegate still photography to a very limited place. The reason that I say this is, borrowing from a straight photographers litany, that straight photography is more realistic than any other type of photography, when one examines the "realistic premise" on face value it is not really as realistic as is it would appear.
Let's compare what is and what could be...
Still photography whether it is film or digital captures one slice of time/space and nothing more. All of the expertise in the taking or printing of a still image is never going to do more than capture a single portion of time/space as it relates to the object/subject being photographed. It can never become more than that and the same conditions at the time of exposure as it relates to that time/space may never reoccur again. Furthermore, all that is capable of being portrayed in a still photographic image are the visual aspects of form...nothing more. If we were to take a photograph of a tree, a stream, a waterfall, or some architectural aspect it will be able to contain only the visual aspects of form as it relates to that subject/object.
Now with todays technology one could alternately capture an entire day of time/space on film or video. Let me assume that this would be daylight portrayal since the limitations of available light applies to both "still" and "unstill" photography. We could with todays technology place digital picture frames throughout a display space in lieu of framed still photographic prints. Now with this approach with computer control we could depict a more life like and hence more realistic aspect of the object/subject that we are photographing because we have the ability to depict virtually unlimited multiples of single portions of time/space.
Instead of a silent unmoving still image, we would be able to observe movement, sound, and changing light conditions as well. Instead of an unchanging image we would present a continuously changing image. Additionally, since we would be viewing this by transmitted light in lieu of reflected light I would hazard that most viewers would choose this over a photographic print. One could, with available technology, alternate these ongoing images from place to place within the inhabited space and even change them from time to time if desired.
Expensive? to that I would ask what is expensive when you consider the prices that some prints command today?
In this scenario rather than buying still photographs one would buy or rent discs to depict the photographic scenes they wanted in their inhabited spaces. Obviously this will not initially appeal to some...certainly, one would expect existing still photographers to be highly resistant. Too strange?, perhaps?...I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Bookmarks