The Digital, The Instant and The Analogue
There is no doubt that digital photography has enabled the world to more immediately capture and comment on modern society, from the uprisings in the middle-east to local news programmes displaying viewer’s pictures at the end of the weather, digital is instant and easily accessible. Yet, digital photography has also given rise to numerous faddy crazes in photography such as the ‘Myspace pose’ adopted by countless preening teens on social networking sites and numerous mobile-phone photographic apps which attempt to imitate older ‘lo-fi’ techniques such as Hipstamatic or Poladroid. Indeed, even an amateur equipped with a DSLR and a basic knowledge of Photoshop can now manipulate and HDR their snaps into ‘masterpieces’ of the photographic art. But in this digital revolution in which everyone is their own, self-styled Ansel Adams, haven’t we lost something too?
Would we marvel at the mastery of light in a Monet or a Caravaggio if they’d snapped it as they were walking by on their way to work and then spent five minutes messing about with it till it looked like something really spectacular? I think not. It is the struggle and effort it takes to master analogue photography which is what sets it aside from digital and imbues it with its own special authenticity.
Analogue photography has a history, one with its feet firmly planted in both chemical and mechanical discoveries that converged to produce one of the most astounding achievements of the modern world, the ability to record the likeness of almost anything, written solely with light. This was the result of years of research and experimentation by a number of 19th Century scientists, (in fact there is even evidence that alchemists discovered the photosensitive properties of chemicals as early as the 17th century, but disregarded it in their quest to turn base metals into gold) and it is precisely the experimentation and the unpredictability of the medium that is currently driving a new generation to pursue analogue photography. A generation bored of ‘perfect’ results, wherein defects are neatly and carefully ironed out by the camera itself to produce a clean, well-exposed photograph at the press of a button.
The ‘Holga’ camera by Lomography is largely responsible for the resurgence of interest in this ‘lo-fi’ revolution, expounding the mantra ‘Don’t think just shoot’ and encouraging the use of all-plastic or ‘toy’ cameras and the use of out-of-date film to give unexpected results. The idea that the imperfect image is the best image and that there is an inherent element of ‘chance’ in taking a photograph are the key concepts behind the Lomography brand.
Furthering this experimental approach to modern analogue photography is the Impossible Project and the eagerly anticipated New55 Project, picking up where Polaroid left off. The Impossible Project leads the charge into new and unexplored areas of instant analogue photography with its own battle-cry, quoted from the late Edwin Land, father of instant photography: ‘Don’t undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly impossible’. After Polaroid declared its bankruptcy, the Impossible Project purchased what was left of the production machinery and the factory in Enschede and began to mix up their own soupy, experimental recipes for instant film. Their approach to business is a novel one in some ways, often selling films whose chemistry is very much unstable, leading to a variety of problems and alternative solutions which, it seems, only further incense the instant-photography rabble into demanding ‘more!’.
And, in a way, The Impossible Project and New55 are responding to the publics’ dislike of digital whilst appealing to the modern consumers’ necessity for instant results. It is perhaps the unpredictability of the materials that the Impossible Project produce which evoke the feeling of ‘authenticity’ that photographers, both amateur and professional alike, crave. Once again the photograph is a physical object, not 1’s and 0’s encoded and encrypted onto a memory card, but something which can be held in the hand and is almost alchemical in its changeability.
Another notable innovation in recent analogue photography is the creation of Harman Direct Positive paper, developed by mainstay of the photographic world Ilford/Harman, the paper produces a positive black and white image on a sheet of sensitised paper, using real silver, its primary use being for large format and pinhole cameras.
While there are several obvious advantages that digital has over analogue, such as ease of use, compactness and portability and price, analogue photography has one final trump card. The resolution of analogue photography is much higher. That is to say, while a DSLR can produce a very good quality image with a 35mm sensor, a medium or larger format analogue camera can produce an image at much greater quality because of its greater size. Whilst there have been several successful digital backs for medium and large format cameras, their price and downright sluggish processing of photos puts them far beyond the means of amateurs and even most professionals. In comparison, large format film photography has a relatively low running cost, the negatives are taken to a lab, developed and then scanned either by the lab or the photographer themselves on a flatbed scanner.
This is ultimately where, for the time being, digital photography is lacking. But in the future, who’s to say what could happen? As medium and large format backs are produced in greater numbers their prices could well become more of a reality for the keen amateur rather than the distant dream they are for most photographers at present. And who knows, perhaps in twenty years we’ll all be taking 3D holographic photographs that appear as flickering blue projections, but for now, we’ll stick with reliably unpredictable analogue, thankyou.
gummygunk
izzy806
areudirty
gamechangershow
tangentwithtanner