Ch. 7 Reading Response

There is a stereotype for photographs to be credible representations of real life (p.331). Although digital photography has been reputationally more prone to be seen as more 'artificial', there really is not much difference. The book says "digitalizing the light that comes through the less of a digital camera is no more or less artificial than the chemical process of traditional photography" (p.329)

"Manipulation was not a new capacity of digital image technology but had always been integral to photography." (p.321) - thought this was an interesting and valid point mentioned in the book. It is true that with the traditional dark-room photography, much craft is used and there can also be many manipulations in the dark-room.

The end of the chapter focused on the milestones in photography history that really made the art more readily available and usable by the average Joe, and now, it has narrowed the gap between professional and amateur (p.337). This has always been a pondering question of mine. There really is no boundary between an amateur and professional photographer, in fact, all of us in this class can call ourselves a 'photographer' but how does that distinguish us from those photographers who have devoted their whole life to the art and craft? Is being a 'good' photographer distinguished by the number of awards and recognition that we have achieved?

With the "sheer number of photographs that can be taken, often in short periods of time, and without any cost, might seem a banal fact but must surely have meaning in terms of the kinds of images made." It is true that most people who take photographs today do not have the formal education of a photographer from before the digitalization of photography. Photographers have been lumped into this general category, much like our "tendency to generalize 'photography' as a whole (p.329).

The book has also mentioned in multiple places the fact that nowadays, with the creation of digital photography, the "majority [of photographs now, will] never a 'hard-copy form", whereas they were always in physical form, they are now "normally digital" (p.315) It think it would be interesting to mention that with the increasing number of contexts to take photographs, it would be impossible to not have them in digital form. I remember using film cameras during my middle school days. I would have to take photos sparingly, so to not use up the film - but now, I can snap more more 3 times the number of pictures and not have to worry about not able to take more later.

With photos being digital, images are now also easier to sort and archive. Because we are now able to take more pictures without virtually costing us anymore than the previous picture, the quality of these pictures have now diminished. Much like the internet, we now have an abundance of media that we will have to sort through and decide with ones are credible and of superiority. With this begin the case, do you believe there will be bigger (ie. more controversial and ranging in opinions) debates to deciding as to what photographs are of quality and meaning in the future? Do you think that because there is an even bigger range of contexts where photographs are made, that more and more genres of photography will emerge and that we will have a larger range of 'good' photography?