Digital Vs Analogue

As a class we have had a forum on which we have had to discuss the pros and cons of digital and analogue photography and  which is best and why. It was started by our tutor who put a quote up from an interview with a photographer, Ricky Adams. The whole interview can be found HERE

 

Digital

 Pros
-Affordable
-Easier to edit
- More accessible
- Auto mode
- Can see photograph straight away

Cons
- lost its true value due to how easy it is for anyone to take photographs
- hides the truth in photography due to manipulation
- Less satisfaction with final result
-Harder to become an established photographer due to how accessible photography is now

Analogue

Pros
- Shows your skills more as a photographer
- Quality is better
- Helps you understand setting therefore helps with digital photography

Cons
- No Auto mode
- Does not allow for mistakes(not always possible to re-shoot)
- Darkroom's are not always easy to access
- Expensive

"The manipulation of imagery comes automatically with digital, and therefore you have to question whether the digital age presents great photographers or great editors? while analog photography separates the photographers from editors?"(Emma Miller)
This quote stood out to me most through the forum because over editing a digital image is a pet peeve of mine as I think you should be able to take a good photograph not just edit it well. Analogue relies on getting it perfect the first time and there is a lot less editing available in the darkroom to digitally on Photoshop.

With Digital I think that anyone can take a standard photograph but only someone with a lot of skill can perfect something like the depth of field of a photograph to really enhance, having a good reason for it, not just for the sake of it. Analogue can be beneficial in helping you use your digital camera such as knowing how to use the camera settings well. The final product you get from developing analogue prints is so much more rewarding as it takes a lot more care and time and I think that feeling is totally worth the extra costs. It’s a great thing to be able to learn as it’s not very accessible anymore and I think it makes you a more valuable person to hire for a job due to how much more you learn so for me Analogue wins.

Discussion- How work is Viewed ?

There are many opinions of where your work is displayed and how but  it comes down to personal preference of the artist.

Should you use the web and galleries to display your work?

One view is that the web does not show your work as you would like it to be viewed so it loses part of the quality and feel to it. Having it in a gallery allows you to put it up how you wanted it to be viewed so you are happy with it.

An argument against this is that choosing the way to display your work could be seen as manipulating the viewer opinion. 

However I feel you cannot have one without the other as using the web helps to get your work out there and you should be able to find a way to lay it out that to an extent represents your work in the way you want. Your work should still look just as good on the internet and i think this helps you to become more well known and if people have heard about you are more incline to visit your exhibition. After visiting your exhibition the web can be helpful so people such as student can research you further. I do think that the way you display your work can be manipulating however I don't think it can change someones opinion enough to matter. At the end of the day you are the artist so the layout is part of the art.

Is someone else reprinting/re-using and displaying your work acceptable?

An argument for is that your work being reprinted even on a poor quality printer is still getting your work out there in someones home as long as the are not manipulating it in any way such as cropping. This is were re-using comes in, re-using is changing your work and is only okay if they are not showing it as yours.

An argument againest this statement is that it should not be allowed as it loses it quality. For example if you make a photograph that is in a series of 1/50 it makes the buyer more respectful of your work.

Re-using in my opinion is not acceptable unless it is completely different and with your permission. An example i see as quite disrespectful is the adaption of the Mona Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci by Marcel Duchamp were he drew facial hair on too. This is not something that would normally be socially acceptable so why is it okay for his work to be seen as art? 



Sources:

http://www.marcelduchamp.net/L.H.O.O.Q.php

The Photograph as Contemporary Art by Charlotte Cotton

I am not really into books especially academic ones due to the wording however for once this book is a fairy easy read so makes it much more appealing. Due to the ease of understanding this well written book that for once is not over complex I have read most of it. It has a lot of great photographers in such as Anna Gaskell in chapter 2, 'Once upon a time'. This chapter is all about the use of story telling within photography often making references to, 'fables, fairy tales, apocryphal events and modern myths that are already part of our collective consciousness'. This chapter has been very helpful throughout my studies this year as there are a lot of tableaux photographers in it. It is easy to find the artist, very informative but  has plenty of illustrations to keep you interested.

Anna Gaskell, Untitled #59, 1999 

Chapter 3, Deadpan is another chapter that has been very useful for my Orientation unit which I did during the first semester. For this I looked at Deadpan as photographic strategy rather then a specific photographer as I chose to use this strategy like this my self so I was not influencing the viewers opinion of the graffiti.

.
Overall this book is very informative, has many photographers in it and is an easy read so for me this book is great.

Sources:

Book: Charlotte Cotton, The photograph as contemporary art, 2004