That Time article might have been relevant about 20 years ago.
Digital capture quietly but definitively severed the optical connection with reality, that physical relationship between the object photographed and the image that differentiated lens-made imagery and defined our understanding of photography for 160 years. The digital sensor replaced to optical record of light with a computational process that substitutes a calculated reconstruction using only one third of the available photons. That’s right, two thirds of the digital image is interpolated by the processor in the conversion from RAW to JPG or TIF. It’s reality but not as we know it.
Obviously the author never used Kodachrome film which also interpolated its final image from raw data collected by the B+W film base.
For obvious commercial reasons camera manufacturers are careful to reconstruct the digital image in a form that mimics the familiar old photograph...
The transition to digital photography mimicked the film image since that was the only standard we had. Digital sensors are based on how the eye, not film, perceives light. That's why there are twice as many green pixels in a Bayer sensor.
The real story is the rise of computational photography and how that will destroy the historical record of the 21st century and maybe beyond:
Except in photojournalism, there will be no such thing as a ‘straight photograph’; everything will be an amalgam, an interpretation, an enhancement or a variation – either by the photographer as auteur or by the camera itself.
Today, we have a hundred years of film images in people's drawers, closets, attics, basements, etc. These can be used as the historical record of the past century. If you have the film, then it's probably 100% honest as to its content.
Software exists today that can: remove reflections, window screens, fences, and other unwanted objects; change the direction of light; add lights (and their related shadows); rotate the image so we can see (slightly) around corners; add smiles to people's faces; change someone's pose; and, of course, merge/blend multiple images together. All with simple button clicks. This means that every digital image will always be suspect.
There's nothing wrong with photographic art. The problem is when the photographer, or others, pass off this art as documentary work or as a "found" image.
Many folks today still aren't aware of how much some advertising and fashion photos are altered or how much some magazine covers are altered. They assume that because it's a photo, it's real.
We laugh at all the obviously altered news photos coming from North Korea but most folks aren't aware how close we are to that happening here in the western world. (It has happened a few times but not on a daily basis, yet.)
We’re already highly skilled in distinguishing probable and improbable information and we know how to read written journalism (which is driven entirely by the writer’s imaginative ability to interpret reality in symbolic form) and we don’t confuse advertising imagery with documentary, nor the photo illustration on a magazine’s cover with the reportage inside.
We're highly skilled? We don't confuse ads with editorial? We know the difference between illustration and reportage?
Not even close. Entire publishing companies rely on the public's lack of such skills.
The revolutionary change in photography’s cultural presence wasn’t led by photographers, nor publishers or camera manufacturers but by telephone engineers...
Obviously the author never spoke with anyone at Nokia who had the first cellphone camera last century or with anyone at Apple.
Camera manufacturers led the change with affordable auto-focus/auto-exposure/auto-flash film cameras in the 1990s and then again in the early 21st century with the same in digital cameras. Cellphone cameras have existed for almost 20 years but the "cultural presence" didn't take off until Facebook/Twitter gave folks a reason to (over)use their cellphone cameras.
Yes, "telephone engineers" made it quick and easy to upload a picture.
All photo apps and software that have been developed were led by photographers, or to be more accurate, by the work of photographers. Consumers want their quick snaps to look artistic and professional but without any of the work. So we have one-button-click-apps to do: multiple exposures, HDR, panoramas, blurred backgrounds, soft-focus, silhouettes, panning, toning, and the other zillion things a photographer can do with their images.
Photography’s "cultural presence" isn't really due to the public's new-found love of photography. Rather it's due to people's desire for identity. And that desire has been greatly amplified by the Internet. Photography has always been a good tool for communication and folks will often repeat the famous quote that "a picture is worth a thousand words." (Of course, you know that there never was such a saying but if you repeat a myth enough, it becomes fact.)
Until "telephone engineers" invent a new communication tool, (where is the one-button pop musician app?), we're stuck with photography. But that's okay since a picture never lies.
Fun fact: Nikon has a camera that can make phone calls and no "telephone engineers" were involved.
Topic: Photography is changing, has changed (Read 2269 times)