Fred Ritchin writes in In Our Own Image that, as we are entering a markedly different age of photography and our relationship with it, the “fidelity of the mechanical age” is now being replaced by “the fluidity of the digital” as new technology now rounds out our lives . As it relates to photography, the film camera can be left behind as a relic of that rigid, predictable age, while we welcome in post-production, digital re-touching, etc, which are rendered possible by advances on the digital frontier. The “fluidity of the digital” therefore recognizes digital photography specifically as a new medium wholly unique from other mediums of photography and disciplines of art, and also refers to digital technology being intrinsically dynamic and ever-changing, prompting the necessity to be ready to adapt while being conscious with what intention we use it. 

A new “digital photography” now having blossomed, I think Ritchin also means to highlight that the digital age is by nature not rigid or stagnant, which will obviously then affect digital photography and how we view it.  He welcomes photography growing in the first place, writing that it was time. 

Example of digital imaging + the benefits / drawbacks

The above is an image of a cover of the National Review in 2012 in which former President Obama is seen speaking at the Democratic National Convention. The crowd is seen holding blue signs reading “ABORTION,” but which originally read “FORWARD.” The National Review admitted they altered the writing.  The motives: likely political or ideological, the implications: many.

This is an example of a milestone we’ve crossed in a new(er) phenomenon: doctoring images. Certainly, doctored images predate the rise of technology. Many can argue that from its inception, photography is, to a degree, altered reality, if one considers even the basic set-up of a picture such as during a photoshoot. Newer services and the streamlining of them however have landed us in an era where anyone can retouch any image to the extreme from the privacy of their own device.

Another example of “the fluidity of the digital” that is the most obvious to me is that mass engagement in digital imaging has led to increased exposure and expectation to involve oneself, if not increasing the value of the actual image. Ritchin touches on this when quoting Doctors Without Borders, writing that “without a photography there is no massacre” (pg 13).  

Film vs. digital photography, and photography vs. other mediums.

I think Ritchin bringing back and picking apart the term “horse-less carriage,” and how by limiting it to our familiarity with an older mode of transportation (horse-drawn carriages), it doesn’t encapsulate the new invention, helped me understand film and digital as two different mediums.  

The author also aptly identifies digital imaging as now being inextricably linked to consumer capitalism and vested interests. On the contrary, something like the radio, has “no vested interest in the presentation of image…commercial interest in making the discussion ‘sexy'” (16). 

Where we stand + to what extent can photography capture reality?

“The photograph is no longer only of the fraction of a second and the particular segment of space, but an authored compendium,” writes Ritchin (21). Rather than trying to imitate analog photography directly, we can make use of the new synergistic opportunities we now have to tell more stories. We also need not abandon photography as we have known it. Whichever way forward, one thing that will facilitate this is having a discussion about what we expect from the photograph.  I always thought about how a picture is worth a thousand words, but I haven’t necessarily considered what is the most objective. Ritchin provokes thought by deeming photography as “quasi-objective and historically reliable” (pg 2), and that the photographer community is “caught in the mindset that anything it produces should be believed,” (18), when it is not the case. As with writers, musicians, and any artist, we have implicit bias, and one could argue that photographer and subject both have less autonomy now. Because of this, it is now important to rediscover what we mean by “writing with light.”

Sources

Ritchin, Fred. “In Our Own Image” Aperture, 1990, pp. 11-20, 125-128

Mallonee, Laura. “Infamously Altered Photos, Before and After Their Edits.” Wired, 29 Jul 2015.