Digital technology has arrived to our world and it’s causing a revolution in every single aspect of our lives. From cell phones to DVDs, surgery equipments to cars, security systems to interior decoration, everything has been drastically changed. While in general this change was for the better of the field in which it was involved, the photographic industry has suffered from an adverse effect. Fifteen years ago, excited about what new horizons this technology would allow us to reach, Charles Traub, head of the graduate photography program at the school of Visual Arts, said that we were witnessing the rebirth of photography (Hagen 01). As unpredictable as the future is, even the wisest mind wouldn’t have been able to foresee that along with this rebirth, new factors, such as the massive amount of amateur photography or the easier than ever photo-manipulation, would get into the game, disrupting negatively many aspects of what we knew as photography.
Surely enough, these days I’m not the only one talking about phenomena such as Flickr, and according to this boast on its creators' homepage, it is “almost certainly the best online photo management and sharing application in the world” (“What is Flickr?” 39). With millions of clicks directed to the upload link in a constant flow and a skyrocketing amount of users that has reached so far 2.5 millions (“What is Flickr?” 39), Flickr is in the vanguard of something we have never seen before. In the words of Danny O’Brien, photographer and columnist of the Irish Times, “The best of the amateur world is swamping the market, and at the best price possible – free” (O’Brien 05). Digital cameras has allowed common folks to have access to equipment within their affordable price-range, and turned photography into their new hobby. Taking pictures is now something ridiculously easy and highly affordable. Since neither films nor darkrooms are involved anymore, the only thing that stops any person willing to take pictures is the initial investment on a camera. The consequences are clear; “Established markets whose profits were previously guaranteed will slowly evaporate” (O’Brien 05). This means that a decade ago, if you, as a photographer, had the privilege of having one of your pictures chosen for a well-known magazine cover, you would get a juice reward of at least a few thousands. Having your picture selected for the same magazine cover nowadays may return to your pocket barely a few hundreds. And it’s getting lower as we speak; such is the speed of change. While there is nothing wrong in doing something you enjoy and sharing it with the rest of the world, this new adopted habit of uploading at an incommensurable rate has transformed the lives of professional photographers. People are having more fun and camera manufacturers companies, such as Canon and Nikon, are making fortunes, with doubled profits in the sale of digital cameras compared to film cameras (Belson c3). However, this is done at the cost of those who don’t just find photography fun, but also have a passion that led them into chasing this as their profession.
Throughout history, photography has always been intrinsically connected to the type of mediums that were available at the time. The works produced by artists and photographers were defined in its baseline by the kind of process that were being used, all the way from the early Daguerreotype to the popular 35mm films and down the road to the recent digital format. Even though this newly introduced revolution may seem at first sight to be another one of the many enhancements that technology advancement brings, Charles Hagen, a Brooklyn based photographer, teacher, writer and Associate Professor of Art at the University of Connecticut, states that “many remain uneasy about the apparent loss of the medium’s claim to truthfulness, it’s authority as a witness to the visual world” (Hagen 01). Photo-manipulation, even thought not a new concept in the field, has been redefined and it has taken a main role with the flourishing of computers and the creation of amazing software such as Photoshop. Unlike in the late 19th century, when a camera was a tool for providing authentic visual evidence of social inequities related to industrialization and urbanization (Rosenblum 384), nowadays a picture on its’ own isn’t even close to be a reliable and determinant proof of anything. With the manipulation of pictures made such an every day activity, where realities captured by the camera are tweaked at will, it is hard for people to believe what meets their eyes. Their judgment rely more on the where the pictures are published and who is the author rather than the picture itself (Hagen 01). And they shouldn’t be blamed for doing so! Digital Photo-manipulation is easy enough for a person to learn without having to attend a single class on the matter. I’m a living proof and just last week I replaced, at request of a close friend, her mother-in-law for her brother in a wedding group shot. The whole process took only twenty minutes. The results; a seamless picture that nobody, but the most expert eyes could identify as digitally modified. Though there is no doubt that pictures will keep on playing a key role in society, we may never again be able to attribute to a picture or a set of pictures the responsibility of creating a major change, either in the political scheme or in the collective conscience. The boom of digital manipulation has cost us one of the unique characteristics that makes a photo not just a mere image that looks pretty, but a silent witness of history that speaks an irrevocable true.
In less than 10 years, we saw how digital cameras replaced film in the professional niche first. Soon enough, the consumer market was invaded by the new little toys. Then, the companies saw that the potential profit and the demand of the public was so high that they even had to create a new category called prosumer, which would include those serious amateurs who cannot invest in the same expensive equipment as the professionals, yet they find unsatisfactory the low quality pictures that point and shoot cameras deliver. Now that everybody, from consummated photographers and artists, passing by obsessed hobbyists, to regular people who only want to snap a few thousand family portraits, is enjoying the benefits of this technology, a problem we never faced before is challenging this perfect picture. With uncountable amount of shoots being taken, and only a tiny portion of them printed, we are facing the possibility of losing them as fast and easy as we obtained them in the first place. Paul Curtis, executive director of the Photo Imaging Council of Australia (PICA), confirms my own ideas about the safest way to keep a photograph: printing it (Dudley-Nicholson 04). I suffered on my own flesh the treacherous feeling of security that hard drives, or any digital storage device, inspire on us. When it died with no apparent reason, it took with him all the pictures I had, without giving me a second chance to print them. Now that I had learned the lesson, I always try to print as many pictures as my budget allows me, but this is yet another complicated issue: I have too may pictures, not hundreds, but thousands. In the old days, we could always stack our old films into a box in the attic and find them 50 years later to make quality reprints. Digital cameras present a panorama in which the pictures are too many to print them all and the storage mediums are too unstable to trust; hard drives may collapse unannounced and CDs and DVDs are easily damaged and can become unreadable within very short terms (Dudley-Nicholson 04). Seems like all of a sudden, we realize that this great feature of digital cameras, that allows us to take pictures non-stop, is a double-edge sword ready to cause a disaster. With all these wonders that digital revolution brought as far as photographs are concerned, we have gone blind, forgotten, and erased all the disadvantages that is represents. We have accomplished the goal of making easier and more fun the process of taking pictures, but we have forsaken something more precious: the certainty that our memories translated into a photo will not disappear into thin air with the passing of the years.
Digital revolution has brought about radical changes in the industry, for better and for worse. What inspired me to write this essay is the fact that few people are able to notice the ugly face of digital photography, which encompasses many different aspects of the industry. However, the future is everything but dark; I believe that adaptation in order to survive is the strongest of all the instincts human beings have. In the end, when the agitated waters come to a rest, professional photographers will keep on offering a noble service; pictures will still play an important role in society, even though not the same one; and people will definitely trust a camera their most beloved memories, finding a way to secure them from any risk.

Works Cited

Belson, Ken. “Digital, a Lower Price, and Catching On: Marketing a Camera To a Broader Market.” New York Times 7 July 2003: C3. ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 – 2004). ProQuest. LaGuardia Community Coll. Lib., Long Island City, NY. 7 May 2008 <[link]

Dudley-Nicholson, Jennifer. “One day my prints will come.” Herald Sun 31 October 2007: 4. General News. Lexis-Nexis Academic. LaGuardia Community Coll. Lib., Long Island City, NY. 07 May 2008 <[link]

Hagen, Charles. “Reinventing the Photograph.” The New York Times 31 January 1993, sec. 2: 1. General News. Lexis-Nexis Academic. LaGuardia Community Coll. Lib., Long Island City, NY. 28 Apr. 2008 <[link]

O’Brien, Danny. “hotography standards blur in a Flickr.” The Irish Times 5 August 2005, Finance Technology sec.: 5. General News. Lexis-Nexis Academic. LaGuardia Community Coll. Lib., Long Island City, NY. 28 Apr. 2008 <[link]

Rosenblum, Naomi. A World History of Photography. New York, London, Paris: Abbeville Press, 1997.

“What is Flickr?” Creative Review 5 June 2006: 39. General News. Lexis-Nexis Academic. LaGuardia Community Coll. Lib., Long Island City, NY. 02 May 2008 <[link]