The Advent of Digital Photography

When cameras hit the mass market, society was changed forever. That type of explosive proliferation of images had never been seen before. It’s safe to say that the advent of digital photography caused the explosion of images to grow exponentially. Cameras are now everywhere and most people are constantly exposed to what seems like an endless stream of photographs on a regular basis. This increased accessibility to photography has changed the world in both positive and negative ways.

Increased accessibility has caused the number of images that individuals create and share to increase dramatically. In September 2013 “Facebook revealed… …that its users have uploaded more than 250 billion photos, and are uploading 350 million new photos each day” (Smith, 2013, para. 1). Not only are people more aware of what’s happening in other people’s lives, but this unprecedented documentation of the everyday lives of such diverse groups of people is incredibly exciting from an archival perspective. Extensive photographic documentation used to exist only for prominent figures. Now people erect virtual shrines to even the most mundane aspects of their lives. This may lead to a future where the lives of underrepresented communities are more documented.

However, this overabundance and increased access and exposure to photographs has in a way desensitized us as a society to images. Whether consciously or not, we as a society have grown accustomed to common archetypes and clichés in imagery. We have seen it all. In a world where nearly everything has been documented, what is actually important? How does one wade through all of the “junk” to find the “gems?” Ultimately, what is worth paying attention to? While there are no definitive answers to these questions, the novel will always capture our attention. Hallward, on advertising, writes “Our brains gear down on continuous presence of familiar old stimuli [and] our brains are programmed to detect, process, and evaluate, and emotionally tag new stimuli” (2007, p. 57-58). The simple act of photography used to amaze and astound. What we once found compelling about images has become commonplace and no longer grabs our attention in the same way.

Another important issue is that, in our increasingly photograph-saturated society, photographs are equated with truth. It’s difficult to imagine news stories without photographs to accompany them. Photographs serve as evidence that an event has occurred. As the popular internet adage goes: “pics or it didn’t happen” (“Pics,” n.d.). In this phrase, a photograph is required in order for one’s claim to be validated as true. Photographs tend to be viewed as unbiased and truthful. Thankfully, bubbling to the surface of the public consciousness is the not-so-shocking reality that photographs should not be taken as the definitive and complete truth. While photographs use reality as their subject matter, perhaps a better way of thinking about them is as a narrative inspired by reality.

Prominent photography theorist Susan Sontag says “The photographer is not simply the person who records the past, but the one who invents it” (1978, p. 67). She goes on to say that “the news that the camera could lie made getting photographed much more popular” (1978, p. 86) partly because of the power it confers over “reality.” The photographer is free to shape reality; to tell a story whatever way they wish it to be told. Through camera angles, lighting, and digital manipulation using programs like Photoshop, a photograph can become anything the photographer wishes it to be. An example of this kind of manipulation occurred in 1994 when Time Magazine featured an image of O. J. Simpson on its cover that was altered to make him look darker and more sinister (Carmody, 1994). Additionally, a simple Google image search on “retouching before and after” returns thousands of results that demonstrate the power that Photoshop has to alter human anatomy. In this way the prevalence of photographs has both established itself as truthful and dispelled that notion at that same time.

 

The proliferation of technology has been both a blessing and a curse. Now the kernels of information that are worth remembering are increasingly difficult to ferret out in an increasingly cluttered landscape. Photographs are often unquestionably viewed as truth, ignoring the effortless and numerous ways in which they can be manipulated on a conscious and unconscious level. Not all is negative, however. Technology makes the world much smaller, and if this explosion of photographic documentation of everyday life is used appropriately, it means that future generations can have a much greater understanding of the past than we have today.

References:

Carmody, D. (1994) Time Responds to Criticism Over Simpson Cover. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/25/us/time-responds-to-criticism-over-simpson-cover.html.

Hallward, J. (2007) Gimme! The Human Nature of Successful Marketing. Hoboken, N.J. : John Wiley & Sons.

Pics or it didn't happen. (n.d.). Wired. Retrieved April 4, 2014 from the Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pics+or+it+didn%27t+happen.

Smith, C. (2013) Facebook Users Are Uploading 350 Million New Photos Each Day. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-350-million-photos-each-day-2013-9#ixzz2xlnRfT5t.

Sontag, S. (1978). On photography. New York, NY: Delta.