Digital and Film Photography - Research Paper Example

?Part Academic Personal interest: Animals Academic Animal studies Possible academic topics: "How elephants were used in war" "Saving endangered species: the equids" "The effects of the BP oil spill on marine life in the Gulf of Mexico" Social issue Personal interest: Media Academic subject: The media's effect on how we see the world Possible academic topics: "Digital technology has not really changed photography" "How advertisements manipulate emotions and shape reality" "Consumerism as the driving force of social reality" Scientific subject Personal interest: Outside spaces Academic subject: Environmental studies Possible academic topics: "Fracking as the cause of recent earthquakes" "How solar power works - Spain's solar array" "How climate change is affecting the world's oceans" Cultural background Personal interest: American Academic subject: What does being American mean Possible academic topics: "The American Dream is a myth" "America is number one - not really" "America is not a melting pot" Part 2 Many people remain suspicious about digital photography because of the ease with which photos can be manipulated, but this aspect of photography hasn't really changed since its earliest days. Part 3 Digital photography has changed the way we see the world around us. It has opened up the world of photography to anyone with the ability to peer through a viewfinder and push a button. It has made it possible for us to easily pull images into our computers and change the captured reality. For this reason, it has become a concern that digital photography has changed the face of photography forever. We can no longer look at an image and assume that it is depicting what really happened at the time the photograph was taken. Many people remain suspicious about digital photography because of the ease with which photos can be manipulated, but this aspect of photography hasn't really changed since its earliest days. By looking at the history of photography and how it has been affected by digital technology, I plan to show that manipulation of photos is something that has been a part of photography for as long as cameras existed. To do this, I will show how the function of the digital camera is not really that different from the function of the traditional film camera and then show how each method is easily manipulated to create an impression of reality. The only true difference is our realization that this is possible. Digital Technology Has Not Changed Photography Student name Course name Instructor name Date Student name Instructor name Course name Date Digital Technology Has Not Changed Photography The world as we see it today is mostly shaped by what is captured in the form of digital photography. Film cameras are almost non-existent as more and more people have found the ease and cost-convenience of digital to far outweigh the hassles of film for most applications. Because of its widespread use, we are all now much more aware of just how easy it is to manipulate photographs to change what we think we see. While most of us embrace the ease of digital photography for ourselves, there is a group of individuals who are outraged at the idea that news photographers are also able to use digital technologies in reporting the news. These people feel that the only way we can get an accurate representation of what's happening in other parts of the world is through the use of film cameras, which produce images that are not as easy to manipulate. My role in the following research is to investigate how film cameras and digital cameras operate to see if there are any differences in the actual capturing of an image and then to compare how images are processed, again with the purpose of comparing techniques and the level to which they can be manipulated. In conducting this research, I bring my own experience as a film and digital amateur photographer as well as someone interested in how the media works to shape our understanding of the world. I have studied how images are used in print ads, video advertisements and in films and television shows to evoke specific moods or to encourage specific interpretations of events. I have also worked with my own camera to see how different images are produced and had several film photographs turn out differently than the way I expected due to mistakes in processing. If it can happen by accident, I wondered how much it could be manipulated by design. My interest and experience in this area ensures I am able to look into the matter fully, researching those areas that might be overlooked by someone who has never worked with film photography before. There is an ongoing debate about the relative merits and 'truthfulness' of photography, especially digital photography. For example, the Washington Post recently started using digital technology called HDR (high dynamic range) to produce images for its publications (Myers, 2012). Using this technology, photographers take several exposures of the same location and then layer them in a way that brings the image into clearer focus, usually as a means of obtaining a more well-lit subject. Essentially, the argument against such use is not that the camera is showing us something that does not exist, but that it is showing us something that the human eye is incapable of capturing on its own. If these types of manipulated images are allowed in the news, where is the dividing line between false images and real? Within this question is the implication that film photography, or photography that doesn't rely on digital technology, is more reliable, less open to manipulation. Given my experience with film photography, I'm not so sure this is an accurate assumption. For this reason, I plan to argue the following tentative thesis: Many people remain suspicious about digital photography because of the ease with which photos can be manipulated, but this aspect of photography hasn't really changed since its earliest days. References Myers, Steve. (January 17, 2012). "Washington Post photo spurs debate over use of HDR technology." Poynter. Retrieved from http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/159659/washington-post-photo-spurs-debate-over-use-of-hdr-technology/ Digital Technology Has Not Changed Photography Student name Course name Instructor name Date Student name Instructor name Course name Date Annotated Bibliography Brown, Milton W. (Autumn 1971). “The History of Photography as Art History.” Art Journal. Vol. 31, N. 1, pp. 31-32 + 36. This is an article written by an art historian who often works with photography as a consumer, as a teacher and as a professional. It was written before the tremendous boom of digital technology, particularly in the visual realm, and so it provides a clear idea of how photography was seen in terms of depicting reality prior to digital photography. This is important to consider because it is very easy, even for the experts, to look back on the past with nostalgia, seeing only the best of something while ignoring any real problems that were encountered. Brown discusses the history of photography, how it came to be seen as a means of capturing true realistic images and how it has been manipulated in the past to produce unrealistic, untrue subjects. Hedgecoe, John. (1991). John Hedgecoe’s Complete Guide to Photography. New York: Sterling Publishing. John Hedgecoe provides very detailed information about how a traditional film camera works. This is useful information because it demonstrates part of why people are so willing to believe that a traditional film camera can only capture what is actually there in front of them as compared to a digital camera that can drop extra information into the frame even when the image is first being captured. However, the book also shows how traditional camera settings can be manipulated to achieve different effects in the same way that digital cameras do today. By discussing the various parts of the traditional camera, Hedgecoe makes it possible to see how sophisticated digital cameras today have the same functions and thus haven't really changed the technology other than automating some of the processes. Hobizal, Mike. (2004). “Digital Image Editing and Manipulation vs. Traditional Photography and Processing.” Digital Image Cafe. This is a relatively short article that was written by a photographer comfortable working with film cameras and his own darkroom as well as with digital cameras and computer software. He wrote the article in direct response to claims that digital photography was too open to creating manipulated images as compared to film photography which was considered to be always true. Within the article, he discusses how he got started in photography, using only film cameras as being the only option available at the time, and how he easily manipulated his own images within his amateur darkroom as a teenager. This source is very helpful in making the argument that film photography is not as reliable as many people today tend to think. Leggat, Robert. (2000). The Beginnings of Photography. Retrieved from http://www.weaponize.com/dacc/115/PPBeginningsOfPhotography.html Like some of the other sources I've found, this article looks into the history of photography. It does it in a slightly different way, though, to show how a number of new inventions were constantly being developed, all in an attempt to more faithfully reproduce a real-life event or scene. In tracing through this history, the author continues to show that photography has never been able to faithfully record the absolute truth of real life. Part of this was due to failures in equipment or processing which resulted in blurred images or false colors, part of it is due to the perspective of the photographer and the way in which the scene was established. For example, the daguerreotype image required 30 minutes of exposure time, forcing a very unnatural setting in which people were expected to hold still if they were to have an image taken, while attempts at creating realistic color representation remained an ongoing process until well into the 20th century. Myers, Steve. (January 17, 2012). "Washington Post photo spurs debate over use of HDR technology." Poynter. Retrieved from http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/159659/washington-post-photo-spurs-debate-over-use-of-hdr-technology/ This source introduces some of the current debate surrounding the use of digital media in presenting the news and why it is questioned. The article talks about what is being done with digital technology to change the way images are captured, such as HDR (high dynamic range) imaging and provides a description of what that means. The article also provides numerous quotes from important people in the field, many of whom indicate that we should be sticking to just those photographic elements that have been available since the 1950s. These quotes help illustrate how individuals feel about digital technology and support my recognition that the believability of digital technology is still highly questioned as compared to purely filmic techniques. Digital Technology Has Not Changed Photography Student name Course name Instructor name Date Student name Instructor name Course name Date Digital Technology Has Not Changed Photography Relatively recent news stories regarding the quality of news have revolved around the problem of digital technology in capturing images. Many individuals have claimed that digital photography has killed any chance at receiving the kind of realistic depictions once offered by traditional film photography. For example, the Washington Post recently started using digital technology called HDR (high dynamic range) to produce images for its publications (Myers, 2012). Using this technology, photographers take several exposures of the same location and then layer them in a way that brings the image into clearer focus, usually as a means of obtaining a more well-lit subject. Essentially, the argument against such use is not that the camera is showing us something that does not exist, but that it is showing us something that the human eye is incapable of capturing on its own. If these types of manipulated images are allowed in the news, where is the dividing line between false images and real? Since its invention, photography has been hailed by the masses as one of the best means of bringing the truth of the rest of the world to the public, affording them views of far-away places and peoples they would never have known about otherwise. The public appearance of the photographic process in 1839 (Leggat, 2000) revolutionized the way people saw the world around them and introduced a concept of capturing images that was so true to life that only the best painters could duplicate the effects. “As an aid in the search for reality, the photograph offered an immediate, faithful and permanent record, a source of artistic exploration” (Brown, 1971: 31). In its earliest forms, due perhaps in large part to the fact that exposure times were lengthy as the technology was in its infancy, photography was used as a narrative form and was considered to depict life as it really was. However, even early in its history, technological developments were allowing for more creative expression than simply recording the ‘truthful’ image. “At the turn of the century [1900], a small group of serious photographers tried to rescue the art form from its low estate by turning their backs on the more blatant forms of narrative photography and its continued reliance on and subservience to painting. They sought a more independent poetic vision based on the camera lens and motivated by a concern with contemporary forms” (Brown, 1971: 31). Although film photography may not be as easy to manipulate to the average amateur, those who are familiar with the process indicate photo manipulation has always been possible. One experienced photographer, Mike Hobizal, goes into great discussion about how he was able to manipulate his images even as a beginning photographer in a homemade darkroom set up in his parents' bathroom. “One day I started experimenting with double exposures, perspectives, etc., both in-camera and in the darkroom. I put the dog’s head on the cat’s body, made my older brother look 300 lbs., and double exposed a shot of a fire in the fireplace on top of a shot of my parent’s house (which my superstitious dad quickly tore up and threw away), among others. I learned lots of techniques to manipulate photographs from books, and some I invented myself. This was fun and some of the results were pretty amazing, even for an early teen working in a makeshift darkroom” (Hobizal, 2004). Thus, while it might be said that “The new malleability of the image may eventually lead to a profound undermining of photography’s status as an inherently truthful pictorial form” (Ritchin, 1990: 28), the new technological developments offered to photography as a result of digital photography are merely the latest in a long line of photographic tools that can be used to explore new creative possibilities and/or provide truthful representation, based upon the decisions made by the photographer. The experts in the field continuously demonstrate that at no point in its history can photography be said to have been limited to merely ‘true’ forms of capturing images. References Brown, Milton W. (Autumn 1971). “The History of Photography as Art History.” Art Journal. Vol. 31, N. 1, pp. 31-32 + 36. Hobizal, Mike. (2004). “Digital Image Editing and Manipulation vs. Traditional Photography and Processing.” Digital Image Cafe. Leggat, Robert. (2000). The Beginnings of Photography. Retrieved from http://www.weaponize.com/dacc/115/PPBeginningsOfPhotography.html Myers, Steve. (January 17, 2012). "Washington Post photo spurs debate over use of HDR technology." Poynter. Retrieved from http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/159659/washington-post-photo-spurs-debate-over-use-of-hdr-technology/ Ritchin, Fred. (1990). The Critical Image: Essays on Contemporary Photography. C. Squiers (Ed.). London: Lawrence & Wishart. p. 28. Outline Student name Course name Instructor name Date Student name Instructor name Course name Date Outline Thesis: Many people remain suspicious about digital photography because of the ease with which photos can be manipulated, but this aspect of photography hasn't really changed since its earliest days. I) The debate about the use of digital photography to report the news is founded on an erroneous belief that film cameras are able to capture 'true' images while digital cameras deliver false impressions. A) There are several experts in news media who claim even when digital technology is used, we should be adhering to the capabilities of 1950s era photography in order to obtain true depictions. B) There are numerous elements to photography that can affect the truth of an image, many of which exist outside of the camera lens and independent of the finished image. II) From the user's perspective, film cameras and digital cameras function in essentially the same way meaning there are few things that can be done with a digital camera that couldn't also be done with a film camera. A) Film camera operation includes settings such as aperture, f-stop, flash, and the user's expertise in establishing the framed image. B) Digital cameras also include these settings with the only real addition being pre-set automatic settings of aperture, f-stop, and flash for generic situations such as shooting subjects up close, shooting landscapes, shooting at night, or shooting on bright days. III) Digital cameras make it easy to manipulate photos by allowing users to instantly download images into the computer and then use photo editing software to make changes, but filmic photos are not immune to this kind of treatment. A) Photos taken with film cameras are as easy to manipulate in the darkroom as their digital cousins. B) Photos taken with film cameras can also be quickly uploaded into computers and adjusted with the same image editing software used to change digital photos. IV) Although there are many similarities between film cameras and digital cameras, there are still some differences that could affect the produced image. A) The internal mechanics of how film cameras and digital cameras record images is greatly different which can affect the finished product. B) The finished product is different when photos are processed as digital images as compared to filmic which can also have an effect on the finished product. V) Conclusion: Although there are some differences in how digital cameras function internally and how images from them are processed for a finished product as compared to film cameras, these differences do not affect the reliability of the image captured and presented. Digital Technology Has Not Changed Photography Student name Course name Instructor name Date Student name Instructor name Course name Date Digital Technology Has Not Changed Photography There is no doubt that the boom of available digital cameras and their immediate integration with desktop computers and other devices has been revolutionizing the photography industry. There are many physical advantages to going digital over more traditional methods. Although the quality of digital camera pictures wasn’t up to the same level as film cameras when they were first developed, digital cameras have been developed more recently that provide an acceptable image quality at a comparable cost. Because digital cameras provide the convenience being able to store many more pictures than the traditional 24 or 36 film rolls, photographers have been able to take many more photographs at a setting without the interruption or inconvenience of having to carry film canisters or changing rolls. The ability to preview the captured photo on site further enables the photographer to select and keep only those photos that accurately illustrate the scene in front of the camera. Thus, if ‘true’ representation is what is being sought, as in news photojournalism, it can be argued that the digital camera provides a greater ability to retain this image as the photographer has opportunity to compare the captured image on site. However, the traditional film camera, because of its longer developmental history, offers more stable, well-known technology and therefore greater consumer confidence. Because filmed images are not so quick to enter the computer, going directly from the camera to the processor presumably without opportunity for manipulation, it is also widely assumed that film photographs adhere closer to the truth. Many people remain suspicious about digital photography because of the ease with which photos can be manipulated, but this aspect of photography hasn't really changed since its earliest days. News stories about the quality and source of photographs used to illustrate news stories have tended to revolve around the problem of digital technology in capturing images. Many individuals have claimed that digital photography has killed any chance at receiving the kind of realistic depictions once offered by traditional film photography. For example, the Washington Post recently started using digital technology called HDR (high dynamic range) to produce images for its publications (Myers, 2012). Using this technology, photographers take several exposures of the same location and then layer them in a way that brings the image into clearer focus, usually as a means of obtaining a more well-lit subject. Essentially, the argument against such use is not that the camera is showing us something that does not exist, but that it is showing us something that the human eye is incapable of capturing on its own. If these types of manipulated images are allowed in the news, where is the dividing line between false images and real? Since its invention, photography has been hailed by the masses as one of the best means of bringing the truth of the rest of the world to the public, affording them views of far-away places and peoples they would never have known about otherwise. The public appearance of the photographic process in 1839 (Leggat, 2000) revolutionized the way people saw the world around them and introduced a concept of capturing images that was so true to life that only the best painters could duplicate the effects. “As an aid in the search for reality, the photograph offered an immediate, faithful and permanent record, a source of artistic exploration” (Brown, 1971: 31). In its earliest forms, due perhaps in large part to the fact that exposure times were lengthy as the technology was in its infancy, photography was used as a narrative form and was considered to depict life as it really was. However, even early in its history, technological developments were allowing for more creative expression than simply recording the ‘truthful’ image. “At the turn of the century [1900], a small group of serious photographers tried to rescue the art form from its low estate by turning their backs on the more blatant forms of narrative photography and its continued reliance on and subservience to painting. They sought a more independent poetic vision based on the camera lens and motivated by a concern with contemporary forms” (Brown, 1971: 31). Although film photography may not be as easy to manipulate to the average amateur, those who are familiar with the process indicate photo manipulation has always been possible. One experienced photographer, Mike Hobizal, goes into great discussion about how he was able to manipulate his images even as a beginning photographer in a homemade darkroom set up in his parents' bathroom. “One day I started experimenting with double exposures, perspectives, etc., both in-camera and in the darkroom. I put the dog’s head on the cat’s body, made my older brother look 300 lbs., and double exposed a shot of a fire in the fireplace on top of a shot of my parent’s house (which my superstitious dad quickly tore up and threw away), among others. I learned lots of techniques to manipulate photographs from books, and some I invented myself. This was fun and some of the results were pretty amazing, even for an early teen working in a makeshift darkroom” (Hobizal, 2004). Thus, while it might be said that “The new malleability of the image may eventually lead to a profound undermining of photography’s status as an inherently truthful pictorial form” (Ritchin, 1990: 28), the new technological developments offered to photography as a result of digital photography are merely the latest in a long line of photographic tools that can be used to explore new creative possibilities and/or provide truthful representation, based upon the decisions made by the photographer. The experts in the field continuously demonstrate that at no point in its history can photography be said to have been limited to merely ‘true’ forms of capturing images. References Brown, Milton W. (Autumn 1971). “The History of Photography as Art History.” Art Journal. Vol. 31, N. 1, pp. 31-32 + 36. Hobizal, Mike. (2004). “Digital Image Editing and Manipulation vs. Traditional Photography and Processing.” Digital Image Cafe. Leggat, Robert. (2000). The Beginnings of Photography. Retrieved from http://www.weaponize.com/dacc/115/PPBeginningsOfPhotography.html Myers, Steve. (January 17, 2012). "Washington Post photo spurs debate over use of HDR technology." Poynter. Retrieved from http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/159659/washington-post-photo-spurs-debate-over-use-of-hdr-technology/ Ritchin, Fred. (1990). The Critical Image: Essays on Contemporary Photography. C. Squiers (Ed.). London: Lawrence & Wishart. p. 28. Digital Technology Has Not Changed Photography Student name Course name Instructor name Date Student name Instructor name Course name Date Digital Technology Has Not Changed Photography There is no doubt that the boom of available digital cameras and their immediate integration with desktop computers and other devices has been revolutionizing the photography industry. There are many physical advantages to going digital over more traditional methods. Although the quality of digital camera pictures wasn’t up to the same level as film cameras when they were first developed, digital cameras have been developed more recently that provide an acceptable image quality at a comparable cost. Because digital cameras provide the convenience being able to store many more pictures than the traditional 24 or 36 film rolls, photographers have been able to take many more photographs at a setting without the interruption or inconvenience of having to carry film canisters or changing rolls. The ability to preview the captured photo on site further enables the photographer to select and keep only those photos that accurately illustrate the scene in front of the camera. Thus, if ‘true’ representation is what is being sought, as in news photojournalism, it can be argued that the digital camera provides a greater ability to retain this image as the photographer has opportunity to compare the captured image on site. However, the traditional film camera, because of its longer developmental history, offers more stable, well-known technology and therefore greater consumer confidence. Because filmed images are not so quick to enter the computer, going directly from the camera to the processor presumably without opportunity for manipulation, it is also widely assumed that film photographs adhere closer to the truth. Many people remain suspicious about digital photography because of the ease with which photos can be manipulated, but this aspect of photography hasn't really changed since its earliest days. News stories about the quality and source of photographs used to illustrate news stories have tended to revolve around the problem of digital technology in capturing images. Many individuals have claimed that digital photography has killed any chance at receiving the kind of realistic depictions once offered by traditional film photography. For example, the Washington Post recently started using digital technology called HDR (high dynamic range) to produce images for its publications (Myers, 2012). Using this technology, photographers take several exposures of the same location and then layer them in a way that brings the image into clearer focus, usually as a means of obtaining a more well-lit subject. Essentially, the argument presented by these individuals is not that the camera is showing us something that does not exist, but that it is showing us something that the human eye is incapable of capturing on its own. If these types of manipulated images are allowed in the news, where is the dividing line between false images and real? Since its invention, photography has been hailed by the masses as one of the best means of bringing the truth of the rest of the world to the public, affording them views of far-away places and peoples they would never have known about otherwise. The public appearance of the photographic process in 1839 (Leggat, 2000) revolutionized the way people saw the world around them and introduced a concept of capturing images that was so true to life that only the best painters could duplicate the effects. “As an aid in the search for reality, the photograph offered an immediate, faithful and permanent record, a source of artistic exploration” (Brown, 1971: 31). In its earliest forms, due perhaps in large part to the fact that exposure times were lengthy as the technology was in its infancy, photography was used as a narrative form and was considered to depict life as it really was. As the field of photography progressed, technological developments were allowing for more creative expression than simply recording the ‘truthful’ image. “At the turn of the century [1900], a small group of serious photographers tried to rescue the art form from its low estate by turning their backs on the more blatant forms of narrative photography and its continued reliance on and subservience to painting. They sought a more independent poetic vision based on the camera lens and motivated by a concern with contemporary forms” (Brown, 1971: 31). Those who are familiar with the photographic process using film indicate photo manipulation has always been possible. One experienced photographer, Mike Hobizal, goes into great discussion about how he was able to manipulate his images even as a beginning photographer in a homemade darkroom set up in his parents' bathroom. Experimenting with his work, he was able to create a variety of affects that were never seen in reality. If a high school student in a simple darkroom can achieve an untruthful image, manipulation at the professional level is certainly possible. Despite the reality of film manipulation, experts continue to discuss digital photography as if it brought with it the photograph's ability to lie. “The new malleability of the image may eventually lead to a profound undermining of photography’s status as an inherently truthful pictorial form” (Ritchin, 1990: 28). In discussing the new technological developments offered to photography as a result of digital photography, the history of photography shows that they are merely the latest in a long line of photographic tools that can be used to explore new creative possibilities and/or provide truthful representation, based upon the decisions made by the photographer. The experts in the field continuously demonstrate that at no point in its history can photography be said to have been limited to merely ‘true’ forms of capturing images. The only difference today is that this technology is much more readily available, even to the amateur photographer, and thus more widely recognized, chipping away at the credibility of photography as a whole. The debate about the use of digital photography to report the news is founded on an erroneous belief that film cameras are able to capture 'true' images while digital cameras deliver false impressions. Essentially, film cameras capture a moment in time occurring in front of the camera without any added embellishments, capturing just what the eye sees and limited by the quality of the film and the expertise of the photographer in using the correct settings to achieve a clear image. There are several experts in the news media who claim that even when digital technology is used, such as digital cameras, news journalists should be adhering to the capabilities of 1950s era photography in order to ensure these 'true' depictions are continued. Independent photographer Frank Niemeir says, "as the human eye sees around 45mm, so everything must be shot at 50mm ... Just because modern cameras can accomplish advanced functions, we must stick to 1950's values" (cited in Myers, 2012). According to these experts, truth equates to capturing images that could be caught by the average human eye - nothing more, nothing less. Such a definition of truth in photography eliminates not only digital cameras with their ability to shoot at a much higher range of definition and light capture, but also higher end film cameras that have the same capabilities, again depending on the quality of the film used. In addition, there are numerous elements to photography that can affect the truth of an image, many of which exist outside of the camera lens and independent of the finished image. One of the largest factors is the photographer him- or herself, who brings his or her own unique perspective to the setting, shoots from his or her own vantage point and interprets events according to his or her background knowledge and beliefs. From the user's perspective, film cameras and digital cameras function in essentially the same way meaning there are few things that can be done with a digital camera that couldn't also be done with a film camera. Because of the point and shoot nature of traditional film photography, in which the picture is shot, sent for processing and returned, it remains a widespread belief that “traditional photographs don't lie” (Diaz, 2006), but the essential operation of the camera remains the same whether it is digital or traditional film. Traditional cameras work to capture the same colors we see by controlling the amount of light allowed to strike a light-sensitive film hidden inside. The camera is a light-proof housing for this film which provides various means of controlling the wavelengths that enter it, exposing only a small segment of film at a time. A small shutter controls the length of time that the film is exposed while a tiny hole determines the amount of light allowed to enter at once (Hedgecoe, 1991). Once the shutter allows the light to enter, the light strikes the film causing a chemical change to occur on the surface of the film. “The chemical record is very stable, and can be subsequently developed, amplified and modified to produce a representation (a print) of that moment that … can be reproduced millions of times in various media” (Woodworth, 2006). This chemical record is then put through another chemical process to extract the image recorded and then print it in appropriate colors on paper or other media. However, other than the use of film, this process is very similar to what happens when using a digital camera. As in human vision, the entire process begins with reflected light as it bounces off of objects within the camera’s field of view and enters the lens. Although a lens is essentially a piece of glass used to focus light on a specific point, this initial contact with the camera provides a great deal of possible effects to the photographer. The focal length of the lens is defined as “the distance from the lens to the point of focus when the lens is focused on infinity” (Wills, 2006). A normal lens will provide a normal-looking picture in that all the objects seen within it will be presented approximately as it was seen with the eye. Depth of field increases with a wide angle lens while sacrificing some focus and distorting the perspective somewhat. “Objects close to the camera will look much larger and closer than they really are and objects far from the camera will look much smaller and farther away than normal” (Wills, 2006). A telephoto lens further limits the field of vision but further throws off perspective through compression, giving it the least depth of field of all the options. An important part of the lens is a solid disk-like object embedded within it that contains a small hole in the middle called an aperture. The size of this hole is adjustable in manual use cameras (film or digital), allowing the user to determine how much light should be allowed to enter the camera. The larger the hole, the more light allowed to hit the film. Aperture is referred to in measurements of F-stop where the smaller F-stop number equals the larger lens opening and the greater amount of light allowed to enter the camera. A larger aperture allows one to take pictures in low light situations while a larger aperture allows one to use a faster shutter speed in order to freeze action. Aperture can also have an effect on the depth of field. These settings are the same on both film and digital manual cameras although many digital cameras today will automatically adjust these settings for specific situations such as daytime, nighttime, close-up portraits or far away landscapes. Digital cameras make it easy to manipulate photos by allowing users to instantly download images into the computer and then use photo editing software to make changes, but filmic photos are not immune to this kind of treatment. Before the image is available for viewing from a film camera, it must still go through the development process. The processing of film generally takes on the same characteristics universally although there are some exceptions involving specially coated dyes or film types. The film is exposed to several different chemicals designed to bring the image to paper in a step-by-step process conducted within a darkroom. At each stage of the process, issues with the chemicals, stray elements within the chemical baths, or even stray light within the darkroom can affect the finished outcome of the image. Once the film has progressed through its various chemical baths, it is dried and cut into smaller sets of frames that can be used to create the prints (Photographic Processing, 2006). At any point in this process, the photographer reserves the right and ability to change what the image portrays, as has been discovered by even the youngest amateur photography buffs. This is illustrated in the description of one photographer regarding his early experience with photography as a high school student working in his parent’s bathroom, converted temporarily into a weekend darkroom. “One day I started experimenting with double exposures, perspectives, etc., both in-camera and in the darkroom. I put the dog’s head on the cat’s body, made my older brother look 300 lbs., and double exposed a shot of a fire in the fireplace on top of a shot of my parent’s house (which my superstitious dad quickly tore up and threw away), among others. I learned lots of techniques to manipulate photographs from books, and some I invented myself. This was fun and some of the results were pretty amazing, even for an early teen working in a makeshift darkroom” (Hobizal, 2004). In addition, numerous photo restorers such as Dick Wittliff (2012) prove that print photos created using film photography can still be scanned into the computer and altered from their original depiction using the same photo editing software commonly used in processing digitally captured images. Although there are many similarities between film cameras and digital cameras, there are still some differences that could affect the produced image and its reliability. Rather than using film, the digital camera uses a specialized silicon chip, often referred to as the sensor, to detect the light entering through the lens aperture and shutter. Unlike film, which is completely light-sensitive and therefore captures even the smallest details, the sensors in a digital camera contain tiny light-sensitive spots called photosites, which do not necessarily cover the entire surface of the sensor and can therefore lose some information in the fine details (Hogan, 2004). These photosites are extremely important to the proper function of the camera as “a photosite essentially converts the energy from a light wave into photoelectrons. The longer a photosite is exposed to light, the more photoelectrons it accumulates” (Hogan, 2004). Also unlike film, the digital camera sees everything with relatively the same degree of on or off, or black and white. To produce color images, the camera uses an array of specialized color filters over the photoreceptors to limit the amount of light it sees. These color arrays are based on either the subtractive or the additive models depending upon the maker of the camera. The analog data thus created moves to the edge of the sensor and is processed by a converter and then another processor that works to average out the RGB values of each individual pixel captured. All of this processing work is done internally with little to no interference from the user which should add rather than detract from the camera's reliability. When processing is complete, the image is ready to be transferred to the computer or onboard display for review. In exporting the image, there are a number of hurdles to overcome to ensure the image captured remains the image printed. These include calibrating the computer, monitor and printer to coincide with the same color patterns utilized and defined by the camera, some of which may not be available on all devices. Other issues include the difficulty in projecting digital images at high resolutions and the sensitivity of the cameras themselves. Digital cameras, because of their computerized parts, tend to be more delicate, having less tolerance to extreme heat, cold and moisture than traditional film cameras. These limitations prevent digital cameras from working effectively in harsh conditions where more traditional cameras have already made strides in overcoming these issues. References Brown, Milton W. (Autumn 1971). “The History of Photography as Art History.” Art Journal. Vol. 31, N. 1, pp. 31-32 + 36. Diaz, Carmelo. (2006). “Digital vs. Traditional Photography.” About Desktop Publishing. Retrieved from http://desktoppub.about.com/od/scanninggraphics/a/dig_trad_photos.htm. Hedgecoe, John. (1991). John Hedgecoe’s Complete Guide to Photography. New York: Sterling Publishing. Hobizal, Mike. (2004). “Digital Image Editing and Manipulation vs. Traditional Photography and Processing.” Digital Image Cafe. Hogan, Thom. (February 6, 2004). How Digital Cameras Work. Retrieved from http://www.bythom.com/ccds.htm. Leggat, Robert. (2000). The Beginnings of Photography. Retrieved from http://www.weaponize.com/dacc/115/PPBeginningsOfPhotography.html Myers, Steve. (January 17, 2012). "Washington Post photo spurs debate over use of HDR technology." Poynter. Retrieved from http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/159659/washington-post-photo-spurs-debate-over-use-of-hdr-technology/ “Photographic Processing.” (May, 2006). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_processing Ritchin, Fred. (1990). The Critical Image: Essays on Contemporary Photography. C. Squiers (Ed.). London: Lawrence & Wishart. p. 28. Wills, Keith. (May 22, 2002). “Lens.” Photography Lab. Wittliff, Dick. (2012). Dick Wittliff Photography. Retrieved from http://www.dickwittliffphotography.com/ Woodworth, Charles. (2006). “How Photographic Film Works.” How Stuff Works. Retrieved from http://science.howstuffworks.com/film1.htm. Digital Technology Has Not Changed Photography Student name Course name Instructor name Date Abstract Given their ease of use and ability to store hundreds of images at a time, digital cameras are replacing film cameras in numerous functions, including photojournalism. However, because of their widespread use, many more people are now aware of the ease with which photographed images can be altered to create new pictorial realities. For this reason, many experts argue that digital photography should not be permitted in serious applications such as in the news. In the following paper, the reliability of digital photographs as compared to traditional film photographs will be compared by examining the functionality of the equipment itself, the process of photo processing and the real differences between how film and digital images are produced. Student name Instructor name Course name Date Digital Technology Has Not Changed Photography There is no doubt that the boom of available digital cameras and their immediate integration with desktop computers and other devices has been revolutionizing the photography industry. There are many physical advantages to going digital over more traditional methods. Although the quality of digital camera pictures wasn’t up to the same level as film cameras when they were first developed, digital cameras have been developed more recently that provide an acceptable image quality at a comparable cost. Because digital cameras provide the convenience being able to store many more pictures than the traditional 24 or 36 film rolls, photographers have been able to take many more photographs at a setting without the interruption or inconvenience of having to carry film canisters or changing rolls. The ability to preview the captured photo on site further enables the photographer to select and keep only those photos that accurately illustrate the scene in front of the camera. Thus, if ‘true’ representation is what is being sought, as in news photojournalism, it can be argued that the digital camera provides a greater ability to retain this image as the photographer has opportunity to compare the captured image on site. However, the traditional film camera, because of its longer developmental history, offers more stable, well-known technology and therefore greater consumer confidence. Because filmed images are not so quick to enter the computer, going directly from the camera to the processor presumably without opportunity for manipulation, it is also widely assumed that film photographs adhere closer to the truth. Many people remain suspicious about digital photography because of the ease with which photos can be manipulated, but this aspect of photography hasn't really changed since its earliest days. News stories about the quality and source of photographs used to illustrate news stories have tended to revolve around the problem of digital technology in capturing images. Many individuals have claimed that digital photography has killed any chance at receiving the kind of realistic depictions once offered by traditional film photography. For example, the Washington Post recently started using digital technology called HDR (high dynamic range) to produce images for its publications (Myers, 2012). Using this technology, photographers take several exposures of the same location and then layer them in a way that brings the image into clearer focus, usually as a means of obtaining a more well-lit subject. Essentially, the argument presented by these individuals is not that the camera is showing us something that does not exist, but that it is showing us something that the human eye is incapable of capturing on its own. If these types of manipulated images are allowed in the news, where is the dividing line between false images and real? Since its invention, photography has been hailed by the masses as one of the best means of bringing the truth of the rest of the world to the public, affording them views of far-away places and peoples they would never have known about otherwise. The public appearance of the photographic process in 1839 (Leggat, 2000) revolutionized the way people saw the world around them and introduced a concept of capturing images that was so true to life that only the best painters could duplicate the effects. “As an aid in the search for reality, the photograph offered an immediate, faithful and permanent record, a source of artistic exploration” (Brown, 1971: 31). In its earliest forms, due perhaps in large part to the fact that exposure times were lengthy as the technology was in its infancy, photography was used as a narrative form and was considered to depict life as it really was. As the field of photography progressed, technological developments were allowing for more creative expression than simply recording the ‘truthful’ image. “At the turn of the century [1900], a small group of serious photographers tried to rescue the art form from its low estate by turning their backs on the more blatant forms of narrative photography and its continued reliance on and subservience to painting. They sought a more independent poetic vision based on the camera lens and motivated by a concern with contemporary forms” (Brown, 1971: 31). Those who are familiar with the photographic process using film indicate photo manipulation has always been possible. One experienced photographer, Mike Hobizal, goes into great discussion about how he was able to manipulate his images even as a beginning photographer in a homemade darkroom set up in his parents' bathroom. Experimenting with his work, he was able to create a variety of affects that were never seen in reality. If a high school student in a simple darkroom can achieve an untruthful image, manipulation at the professional level is certainly possible. Despite the reality of film manipulation, experts continue to discuss digital photography as if it brought with it the photograph's ability to lie. “The new malleability of the image may eventually lead to a profound undermining of photography’s status as an inherently truthful pictorial form” (Ritchin, 1990: 28). In discussing the new technological developments offered to photography as a result of digital photography, the history of photography shows that they are merely the latest in a long line of photographic tools that can be used to explore new creative possibilities and/or provide truthful representation, based upon the decisions made by the photographer. The experts in the field continuously demonstrate that at no point in its history can photography be said to have been limited to merely ‘true’ forms of capturing images. The only difference today is that this technology is much more readily available, even to the amateur photographer, and thus more widely recognized, chipping away at the credibility of photography as a whole. The debate about the use of digital photography to report the news is founded on an erroneous belief that film cameras are able to capture 'true' images while digital cameras deliver false impressions. Essentially, film cameras capture a moment in time occurring in front of the camera without any added embellishments, capturing just what the eye sees and limited by the quality of the film and the expertise of the photographer in using the correct settings to achieve a clear image. There are several experts in the news media who claim that even when digital technology is used, such as digital cameras, news journalists should be adhering to the capabilities of 1950s era photography in order to ensure these 'true' depictions are continued. Independent photographer Frank Niemeir says, "as the human eye sees around 45mm, so everything must be shot at 50mm ... Just because modern cameras can accomplish advanced functions, we must stick to 1950's values" (cited in Myers, 2012). According to these experts, truth equates to capturing images that could be caught by the average human eye - nothing more, nothing less. Such a definition of truth in photography eliminates not only digital cameras with their ability to shoot at a much higher range of definition and light capture, but also higher end film cameras that have the same capabilities, again depending on the quality of the film used. In addition, there are numerous elements to photography that can affect the truth of an image, many of which exist outside of the camera lens and independent of the finished image. One of the largest factors is the photographer him- or herself, who brings his or her own unique perspective to the setting, shoots from his or her own vantage point and interprets events according to his or her background knowledge and beliefs. From the user's perspective, film cameras and digital cameras function in essentially the same way meaning there are few things that can be done with a digital camera that couldn't also be done with a film camera. Because of the point and shoot nature of traditional film photography, in which the picture is shot, sent for processing and returned, it remains a widespread belief that “traditional photographs don't lie” (Diaz, 2006), but the essential operation of the camera remains the same whether it is digital or traditional film. Traditional cameras work to capture the same colors we see by controlling the amount of light allowed to strike a light-sensitive film hidden inside. The camera is a light-proof housing for this film which provides various means of controlling the wavelengths that enter it, exposing only a small segment of film at a time. A small shutter controls the length of time that the film is exposed while a tiny hole determines the amount of light allowed to enter at once (Hedgecoe, 1991). Once the shutter allows the light to enter, the light strikes the film causing a chemical change to occur on the surface of the film. “The chemical record is very stable, and can be subsequently developed, amplified and modified to produce a representation (a print) of that moment that … can be reproduced millions of times in various media” (Woodworth, 2006). This chemical record is then put through another chemical process to extract the image recorded and then print it in appropriate colors on paper or other media. However, other than the use of film, this process is very similar to what happens when using a digital camera. As in human vision, the entire process begins with reflected light as it bounces off of objects within the camera’s field of view and enters the lens. Although a lens is essentially a piece of glass used to focus light on a specific point, this initial contact with the camera provides a great deal of possible effects to the photographer. The focal length of the lens is defined as “the distance from the lens to the point of focus when the lens is focused on infinity” (Wills, 2006). A normal lens will provide a normal-looking picture in that all the objects seen within it will be presented approximately as it was seen with the eye. Depth of field increases with a wide angle lens while sacrificing some focus and distorting the perspective somewhat. “Objects close to the camera will look much larger and closer than they really are and objects far from the camera will look much smaller and farther away than normal” (Wills, 2006). A telephoto lens further limits the field of vision but further throws off perspective through compression, giving it the least depth of field of all the options. An important part of the lens is a solid disk-like object embedded within it that contains a small hole in the middle called an aperture. The size of this hole is adjustable in manual use cameras (film or digital), allowing the user to determine how much light should be allowed to enter the camera. The larger the hole, the more light allowed to hit the film. Aperture is referred to in measurements of F-stop where the smaller F-stop number equals the larger lens opening and the greater amount of light allowed to enter the camera. A larger aperture allows one to take pictures in low light situations while a larger aperture allows one to use a faster shutter speed in order to freeze action. Aperture can also have an effect on the depth of field. These settings are the same on both film and digital manual cameras although many digital cameras today will automatically adjust these settings for specific situations such as daytime, nighttime, close-up portraits or far away landscapes. Digital cameras make it easy to manipulate photos by allowing users to instantly download images into the computer and then use photo editing software to make changes, but filmic photos are not immune to this kind of treatment. Before the image is available for viewing from a film camera, it must still go through the development process. The processing of film generally takes on the same characteristics universally although there are some exceptions involving specially coated dyes or film types. The film is exposed to several different chemicals designed to bring the image to paper in a step-by-step process conducted within a darkroom. At each stage of the process, issues with the chemicals, stray elements within the chemical baths, or even stray light within the darkroom can affect the finished outcome of the image. Once the film has progressed through its various chemical baths, it is dried and cut into smaller sets of frames that can be used to create the prints (Photographic Processing, 2006). At any point in this process, the photographer reserves the right and ability to change what the image portrays, as has been discovered by even the youngest amateur photography buffs. This is illustrated in the description of one photographer regarding his early experience with photography as a high school student working in his parent’s bathroom, converted temporarily into a weekend darkroom. “One day I started experimenting with double exposures, perspectives, etc., both in-camera and in the darkroom. I put the dog’s head on the cat’s body, made my older brother look 300 lbs., and double exposed a shot of a fire in the fireplace on top of a shot of my parent’s house (which my superstitious dad quickly tore up and threw away), among others. I learned lots of techniques to manipulate photographs from books, and some I invented myself. This was fun and some of the results were pretty amazing, even for an early teen working in a makeshift darkroom” (Hobizal, 2004). In addition, numerous photo restorers such as Dick Wittliff (2012) prove that print photos created using film photography can still be scanned into the computer and altered from their original depiction using the same photo editing software commonly used in processing digitally captured images. Although there are many similarities between film cameras and digital cameras, there are still some differences that could affect the produced image and its reliability. Rather than using film, the digital camera uses a specialized silicon chip, often referred to as the sensor, to detect the light entering through the lens aperture and shutter. Unlike film, which is completely light-sensitive and therefore captures even the smallest details, the sensors in a digital camera contain tiny light-sensitive spots called photosites, which do not necessarily cover the entire surface of the sensor and can therefore lose some information in the fine details (Hogan, 2004). These photosites are extremely important to the proper function of the camera as “a photosite essentially converts the energy from a light wave into photoelectrons. The longer a photosite is exposed to light, the more photoelectrons it accumulates” (Hogan, 2004). Also unlike film, the digital camera sees everything with relatively the same degree of on or off, or black and white. To produce color images, the camera uses an array of specialized color filters over the photoreceptors to limit the amount of light it sees. These color arrays are based on either the subtractive or the additive models depending upon the maker of the camera. The analog data thus created moves to the edge of the sensor and is processed by a converter and then another processor that works to average out the RGB values of each individual pixel captured. All of this processing work is done internally with little to no interference from the user which should add rather than detract from the camera's reliability. When processing is complete, the image is ready to be transferred to the computer or onboard display for review. In exporting the image, there are a number of hurdles to overcome to ensure the image captured remains the image printed. These include calibrating the computer, monitor and printer to coincide with the same color patterns utilized and defined by the camera, some of which may not be available on all devices. Other issues include the difficulty in projecting digital images at high resolutions and the sensitivity of the cameras themselves. Digital cameras, because of their computerized parts, tend to be more delicate, having less tolerance to extreme heat, cold and moisture than traditional film cameras. These limitations prevent digital cameras from working effectively in harsh conditions where more traditional cameras have already made strides in overcoming these issues. Although it cannot be concisely proven that digital photography is more reliable than film photography, there is evidence that the ability to manipulate images has been an option for the serious photographer regardless of the technology used at least since early in the 1900s. Ever-improving technology is working to address some of the concerns of the professional photographer regarding the reliability of image capture in digital photography, but many of the same principles attached to traditional film photography, such as shutter speed and aperture setting, remain identical to the methods used by digital cameras. Another of the larger concerns regarding reliability in digital photography has to do with the process of producing a printed or otherwise usable image. Although photo manipulation through the use of readily accessible photo editing software is more available now than it has been in the past, as well as more accessible to the amateur photographer, these same techniques are possible when working with film. The only difference is the time involved and the expertise required. Since the technology of digital photography has not significantly changed the way in which images are captured, nor has it changed the ‘true’ nature of the photograph when presented in ‘true’ form, it is a falsehood to claim that digital photography has forever eliminated our ability to capture 'real' images depicted true-life events. References Brown, Milton W. (Autumn 1971). “The History of Photography as Art History.” Art Journal. Vol. 31, N. 1, pp. 31-32 + 36. Diaz, Carmelo. (2006). “Digital vs. Traditional Photography.” About Desktop Publishing. Retrieved from http://desktoppub.about.com/od/scanninggraphics/a/dig_trad_photos.htm. Hedgecoe, John. (1991). John Hedgecoe’s Complete Guide to Photography. New York: Sterling Publishing. Hobizal, Mike. (2004). “Digital Image Editing and Manipulation vs. Traditional Photography and Processing.” Digital Image Cafe. Hogan, Thom. (February 6, 2004). How Digital Cameras Work. Retrieved from http://www.bythom.com/ccds.htm. Leggat, Robert. (2000). The Beginnings of Photography. Retrieved from http://www.weaponize.com/dacc/115/PPBeginningsOfPhotography.html Myers, Steve. (January 17, 2012). "Washington Post photo spurs debate over use of HDR technology." Poynter. Retrieved from http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/159659/washington-post-photo-spurs-debate-over-use-of-hdr-technology/ “Photographic Processing.” (May, 2006). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_processing Ritchin, Fred. (1990). The Critical Image: Essays on Contemporary Photography. C. Squiers (Ed.). London: Lawrence & Wishart. p. 28. Wills, Keith. (May 22, 2002). “Lens.” Photography Lab. Wittliff, Dick. (2012). Dick Wittliff Photography. Retrieved from http://www.dickwittliffphotography.com/ Woodworth, Charles. (2006). “How Photographic Film Works.” How Stuff Works. Retrieved from http://science.howstuffworks.com/film1.htm. Read More