Future of Photography’s Past

In the past several years we have seen an explosion of digital photography. The quality of digital cameras has gone up and cost has come down. Imaging has and likely will get increasingly better. The convenience alone is enough for most to abandon film. There have been predictions for a long time that film is dieing, dead and obsolete. A solid sign of the current trend is a recent announcement by the benchmark camera company Nikon that it would no longer make most of its film cameras. However, while the nature of how film is used and what it is being used for is evolving, it is far from dead.

Digital photography is really liberating. Anyone who has made the jump even with a borrowed camera can attest to the pleasure of seeing the little image on the LCD. No guessing, no waiting, no added expense after you have a camera. No more, “I think I got it,” moments and film wasting bracketing for pro’s and serious hobbyists. Finding a place to develop or have your film developed is also no longer an issue. With digital we can transmit files instantly to anywhere we like. On a simple level, web publishing of photos can all be done with a cell phone from image to upload. As technology advances cameras, phones and interconnectivity are sure to increase. So, where does that leave traditional film or “wet” photography?

Quite arguably that leaves film disappearing from both households and media offices and as mentioned above some would say it is going to disappear completely. On the other hand that also puts it squarely into the realm of art. The past couple years have been showing record sales for photographs at Sotheby’s, Christie’s, and Philips and Swann. October 2005 sales hit $30 million almost doubling 2004’s $17.7 million. As wet photography passes further into the realm of art, prices will likely continue to rise even for lesser-known artists. Collectors are already paying premium prices for some types of photos. Examples would be daguerreotypes, cyanotypes, and platinum prints. Reasons could range from nostalgia and rarity to a pet concept of mine, authenticity and the rise of “fake authenticity”.

In a recent conversation with commercial and fine art photographer Tom Galliher, he expressed feelings shared by many photographers about Photoshop and digital photography in general. “I really like to get it right with the camera. Using Photoshop to fix everything just seems dishonest.” and to be honest Tom still shoots a lot of his commercial work on film. There is a certain depth to “real” photos. There is just some sort of life you get with photo emulsion that is missing with a giclee. At the end of the day a giclee is just a computer printout while each traditional photograph, regardless of method, is in some minor way, unique.

A growing number of fine art photographers are using darkroom techniques and clever camera work to produce their finished products and making sure to point it out to collectors. The work of some, Robert and Shauna Parkeharrison for instance, is at some points mind-blowingly complex for darkroom work. Many of their photos are also very large adding to the challenge of not using digital printing methods. Yet another photographer of note, Gregory Colbert, continues to use traditional techniques. He works with 35mm film to produce images as large as five by eight feet. The grain in the prints, made with film pushed beyond it’s theoretical limits, is striking and adds to the art giving it a relatable organic nature seldom achieved with the digital format.

  The realistic outcome is a comfortable evolution of photographic imaging formats where utility rules the day for many commercial photographers and consumers for whom wet photography has run it’s course and a continuation and probable elevation of traditional methods among fine art photographers. So, perhaps the thing to do is continue to collect those lovely original photos and keep your eyes open for fantastic deals on film cameras and darkroom equipment.