If you stood for a while - pondering, appreciating these images - appreciating how the light and the mood of a day can come together in one perfect moment to form one perfect image then analogue photography is for you my friend...But what if I told you that it was all a lie? The images above are not even a little bit authentic. The light was perfect that day and no special mood filled the air... its simply a collection of pixels... tiny little squares masterfully placed together by some iPhone application or another - does it make the image, the final product of that moment any less special?
Does the fact that its digital take away from the essence of photography, or is it just another format? like 35mm replaced 120 film or CD's replaced tapes (& vinyls before that) We all love and use digital on a daily basis but should it really replace lo-fi photography?
Its a question I ask myself all the time and I am far from having the answer but I would love to know what everyone else thinks of the matter?
Photography is a calculated and precise but its also all about the beautiful accident, a unexpected result... there are no beautiful accidents where pixels are involved and I think that makes me kind of sad... but then on the flip side their are amazing photographers producing beautiful work all through a iPhone app...
Jeremy Edwards is one such photographer, thats his shot above and you can check out more of his work here or follow his From The Pocket blog where he takes a iPhone photo a day and posts it to his site... by all means they are beautifully composed images... but when you take away the digital filters and enhancements does it make it any less special - You decide....
Posts
Some of those pictures are lovely, to be sure. But I can guarantee you that 95 times out of 100 I would be able to pick out the ones that are "fake" Polaroids and the ones that are real.
ReplyDeletePolaroid and instant photography is about more than the frame. This is something I wrote in a flickr group discussion, and while we were discussing whether to leave the frame on or not when scanning, I think it applies here:
"I shoot Polaroid film for its various characteristics. I don't shoot it for the frame, although it is part of the charm. I love the frame on the final image that you hold in your hand. But the image is the important part, and a good image should speak to the viewer regardless of how it's framed. I'd rather people judged my photos for what they are, rather than the fact that they are shot on Polaroid film."
There are, of course, other sides to the argument, and those people make very valid points too.
I'm sure there are some photographers making great photos with digital Polaroid apps, but I think these apps cheapen instant photography. Why does slapping a white frame and toying with colours/saturation on a picture make it a Polaroid? What's the point?
I do love the stuff you post by the way, keep it up :)
Im heavily leaning to your side of the fence too t! i use my hipstamatic all the time... but i dont value the image the way i value one that spewed forth from the brilliance of my SX70... and in regards to the frame/no frame debate, i actually dig shots sans frame... like you said focus on the image...
ReplyDeletethanks for reading! xx
Love your blog! Love all your photos!
ReplyDeletehttp://tessa-kit.blogspot.com/