Lev Manovich and Digital Photography

Sorry everyone, I'm a couple of days late in writing this. Too many things going on and not enough time to do them all in. :-)

For this assignment I chose to do Lev Manovich's "The Paradoxes of Digital Photography". The piece is well written and it's interesting to see the references
Manvovich's makes on the subject over thirteen years ago. His references however, don't just include digital photography in the general sense. His references encompass film, cinema, video games, graphics, and other forms of visual media. His main focus in this essay is to reveal a couple of paradoxical highlights in the form of answering questions. His first paradoxical highlight is based on the "alleged physical differences between digital and film-based representation of photographs", while the second is based on the notion of "realism in computer generated syntheic photography".

Manovich expertly deconstructs the absolute notions of "real photography" and virtual images. In short, he compares and contrasts the notions of what most of us have come to think of photography as and how we originally perceived photographic images to be real and void of flaw. Manovich also delineates the notions of cinema and film and the implications associated with computer imaging, video editing, and picture degradation (through file compression).

I was impressed with Manovich's deconstruction of digital imaging and photography. He was able to clearly spell out his assertions regarding the matter and adequately represented his arugments.

His first paradox, "So while digital imaging promises to completely replace the techniques of filmmaking, it at the same time finds new roles and brings new value to the ciematic apparatus, the classic fims, and the photopraphic look. This is the first paradox of digital imaging" has almost rung true. Whle digital imaging hasn't completely replaced the techniques of filmmaking, it certainly has played an ever increasing role within the filmmaking industry. Movies such as Avatar have made great use of digital imaging techniques and effects, but the technique of filmmaking is still there. I tried to figure out if Manovich was trying to convey that digital imaging was specifically related to digital movie cameras or computer generated modeling. I felt that his statement may have been a bit unclear here, but if he is saying that digital imaging is more of a computer modeling feature then I'm in disagreement - The techniques of film making are still present over thirteen years later. If he is saying that digital cameras are taking over traditional film based cameras, then I would tend to agree with his paradox.

His final paradox is based on the notion that digital imaging is both superior and inferior to traditional photography. Manovich uses another author (Mitchell) to compare and contrast this notion. I found Manovich's statement "If we limit ourselves by focusing solely, as Mitchell does, on the abstract principles of digital imaging, then the difference between a digital and a photgraphic image appears enormous. But if we consider concrete digital technologies and their uses, the differencee dissappears. Digital photography simply does not exist" to be somewhat profound. While I note the differences in technologies, I personally don't think about them when taking pictures with a digital camera. In fact in most ways I sincerely prefer the "no muss, no fuss" digital format. It relieves me from the duties of film loading and processing. I'm able to delete pictures I don't want and save the ones I do want. No money is wasted on developing pictures that I don't need and the wait time for pictures I do want is almost nill. I don't notice the differences in picture quality when comparing an analog and digital photo. I'm in agreement with Manovich when he says, "digital photography simply does not exist."