Digital photography today has its advantages and disadvantages depending on which field of work or set of mind we have. Digital gives photographers much broader horizons in term of manipulating images and sceneries to be more appealing or intriguing for the public. As Ritchin, F. (2009, pp 23) points out “Increasingly we are looking at photographs of the map that refers to no territory: the pictures of pictures, the photo opportunities in which politicians and celebrities have their managers stage a scene as if it had actually happened, the photo illustration that magazines adroitly set up to prove a point, the advertisement for products too glossy to exist, the media filters that reduce life to shorthand of shock and voyeurism.” On the other hand, us the public are being misled by fake and over exaggerated imagery that can be found in everyday media. As Ritchin, F. (2009, pp 15) states “Digital photography has been configured as a seamless, more efficient repetition of the past, easier to sell to the apprehensive consumer even as it is celebrated as part of the “digital revolution” (a term that has joined the lexicon of consumer branding.)” So are we being sold the term digital as a glossy product? I think so. There is no need to own the latest digital camera to be able to produce good quality photographs.
Ritchin, F. (2009) After Photography. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc. Chapter 1 'Into the Digital'.
0 Kommentarer:
Post a Comment