Oomska’s ‘Future of Photography’ Series continues…

We presented our interviewees with a set list of questions, and left the matter of in what format and at what length they should answer entirely up to them. Here are Emma Jay’s responses.

1. How and when did you first become interested in photography? What was the trigger which led you to take a serious interest? How different would that trigger be now, with all the changes – technological and otherwise – in photography during the intervening years?

I think I was about 6 or 7 years old when I started to be fascinated by photographs. There wasn’t any particular trigger, more that I was a “watcher” as a child. I would observe. I still do that. It wasn’t until I was at University that I took a serious interest – buying a good camera and experimenting in the dark room.

2. Photography is often described as a mixture of art and science. It’s also a medium. How has digital technology altered the way these elements combine to produce what we think of as ‘photography’? Has technology altered that balance?

I’m not so sure about this. One can alter an image digitally, but you still need an ‘eye’ for an image initially. Digital technology has made photography more accessible to people, but I don’t think it has made them all artists.

3. Prior to the introduction of digital, how much did the equipment you used change over the years? How has digital changed the way you use equipment? How would today’s technology, if you could have used it earlier, have changed your relationship with photography?

When I first started taking photos, I used a 35mm SLR and a Polaroid camera. I still love the Polaroid! I then “progressed” to a 6X6 medium format, which I really enjoyed using but found very challenging. I don’t think I’m technically minded enough to have fully mastered it. With the advent of digital equipment, I shoot a lot more images. It doesn’t matter if you make mistakes – they can be deleted. With the medium format, I only had 12 exposures to a roll of film, so had to be very careful…

4. How would photography’s great pioneers have embraced and utilised today’s technology? Might Ansel Adams be using software to stitch together panoramas of Yosemite? Would Garry Winogrand be using an iPhone? Would Eadweard Muybridge be experimenting with HDR?

Interesting question. I definitely think photographers like Winogrand, Nan Goldin and even Cartier-Bresson would have utilised the immediacy of camera phones in a fascinating way. I think for landscapers, it’s different. There is a slowness to the creation of those images which is still the case today. Possibly Adams or similar would still use what is “there” rather than what they can create afterward. I’d love to see how Dorothea Lange would have embraced or rejected the technology.

5. In some ways, digital seems to have ‘won out’ over film. Digital photography is everywhere, while companies such as Nikon and Fuji are discontinuing some of their films and film cameras. Is this process irreversible? Should we care?

We should care, yes; but at the same time (in a similar way to tapes replacing vinyl, CDs replacing tapes, mp3 replacing CDs, etc) we should embrace the new technology. It doesn’t mean that film should become obsolete. I think there is room for all. I was devastated when Polaroid announced they wouldn’t be producing anymore, but other companies have stepped in to fill the void. There will always be passionate people out there who love film and will not let it fade into extinction.

6. Are there some qualities or aspects of film photography which digital will never be able to replicate or replace? If so, will these aspects of photography die with film?

Well, it’s interesting that a lot of the new photography apps seek to replicate the “unreliable” aspects of film, but without the unreliability! So, I guess a few years ago I would have answered yes. Now, I’m not so sure.

7. Will the ‘camera’, as we (still) think of it, even remain as a distinct device? Or will ‘camera’ become just one of a plethora of multimedia features people expect to find on any number of hybrid consumer appliances?

I can’t answer this question. I have no idea..

8. A few years back, Magnum photographer Eliott Erwitt was quoted as saying: “Digital manipulation kills photography. It’s enemy number one.” He also disdained digital in general, for its ability to produce “an image without effort”. To what extent would you agree or disagree with these sentiments?

Hmm. I do agree. I think now it’s all to easy for people to take a crappy image and then “fix” it in photoshop later on. This does take away from the skill required to get the lighting just right, or the shutter speed, or the colour balance. I try to get it right initially, I hate Photoshop and never use it. However, I do find cropping tools very useful… I think a lot of people today fancy themselves as photographers and can technically take a good image, but it lacks soul and heart and integrity. There’s no passion in it. To use film, you have to really love it.

9. We’re all thoroughly weary of the ‘fix it in Photoshop’ approach. But defenders of digital post-processing often say, “Well, it only does what you used to do in the darkroom.” Is this a valid argument?

No.

10. For how much longer will the general conception of ‘photography’ refer exclusively to static, two-dimensional images? Imminently, 3D is looming, and ‘convergence’ – meaning not just the ability of modern DSLR’s to capture high-definition video, but the compulsion to make use of that functionality – is a current buzzword. Does this trend – photographers becoming film-makers, and vice versa – ignore the important divisions between static and moving images?

I don’t necessarily think that this is that relevant. I don’t know any photographers personally who are interested necessarily in creating moving images. I’m certainly not interested in that. I see the static image as being very, very different to the moving image. I have no real interest in creating moving images; and if I did, I wouldn’t compare it to photography. I probably wouldn’t even see it as being the same genre, really. To me, it’s no different to someone creating paintings, and then moving to filming images. I don’t see a direct correlation, other than the equipment used.

11. Cinema historian David Thomson, in his ‘Biographical Dictionary of Film’, wrote the following, regarding Marilyn Monroe: “She gave great still. She is funnier in stills, sexier, more mysterious, and protected against being. And still pictures may yet triumph over movies in the history of media. For stills are more available to the imagination.” How much more of a contentious statement does that seem today?

I don’t think it is that contentious. I agree with him. I think the still image will always evoke more than the moving image. I cannot explain why, either.

Emma Jay started taking photographs in 1998, and started working freelance as a photographer soon after. Initially working with 35mm and medium format cameras, she slowly moved into digital photography – all the while lamenting the decline of the polaroid. She takes portraits. Sometimes these are of people, sometimes places. She loves photo apps on her iPhone. She doesn’t care about being technically perfect or even technically good.

Go to Q&A Index Page

Oomska’s ‘Future of Photography’ Series continues…

We presented our interviewees with a set list of questions, and left the matter of in what format and at what length they should answer entirely up to them. Here are Tamara Bogolasky’s responses.

1. How and when did you first become interested in photography? What was the trigger which led you to take a serious interest? How different would that trigger be now, with all the changes – technological and otherwise – in photography during the intervening years?

I first got interested in photography when I was about 12 years old and I found my father’s old Canon AE-1 camera and I became obsessed with learning how to use it. I thought it was really cool to develop your own pictures and the darkroom became my favorite place.

I feel the trigger would be completely different now with most people learning from digital cameras and not even printing the pictures most of the time. I feel like now, people take pictures for the instant gratification and rarely go back and see what they took a month ago.

2. Photography is often described as a mixture of art and science. It’s also a medium. How has digital technology altered the way these elements combine to produce what we think of as ‘photography’? Has technology altered that balance?

Photography will always remain a mixture between art and science, no matter how technology advances, the principles remain the same and there is still science in the process. Besides, technology and science go hand in hand so maybe now photography has become a more complex mixture of art, science and technology.

3. Prior to the introduction of digital, how much did the equipment you used change over the years? How has digital changed the way you use equipment? How would today’s technology, if you could have used it earlier, have changed your relationship with photography?

I still shoot on film with a medium format camera and I develop in the darkroom. It is now faster to scan images and upload them to my website. I also do use digital cameras for commercial work. I feel that the digital technology has really sped up the process in commercial photography because now clients want everything right away and they want to see what the results are as you are shooting which was impossible before.

There is more control over what you do but you loose a bit of the concentration film had, where you really had to rely on your knowledge and spend time producing a single image whereas now, you take a picture, you look at it, and then fix it.

4. How would photography’s great pioneers have embraced and utilised today’s technology? Might Ansel Adams be using software to stitch together panoramas of Yosemite? Would Garry Winogrand be using an iPhone? Would Eadweard Muybridge be experimenting with HDR?

I think for some of the pioneers, digital technology might help, for example, I think Ansel Adams’s life might have been a lot easier with digital photography; street photographers today might use their iPhones sometimes but they are still shooting with cameras, even if they are digital cameras, there is still a professional aspect to photography that you can’t get with toy cameras and iPhones.

Back when photography was getting started, there was no nostalgia involved because there was no past to be nostalgic about, they where creating. As time has gone by, technology has turned into the new creation and there is a past to remember and to be nostalgic about and there is a beauty in that too.

5. In some ways, digital seems to have ‘won out’ over film. Digital photography is everywhere, while companies such as Nikon and Fuji are discontinuing some of their films and film cameras. Is this process irreversible? Should we care?

It is sad that there is less access to film and film products but I feel that there is still a place for film in photography and I think that even though there are fewer options, it is still alive. I think that we are always going back to the origin. For example, Polaroid discontinued their products but a few months later, Fuji was putting out their version and it was in again. I definitely care about film; I think there is a different feel to images taken with film than digital, there is more thought put into it, there is more value in each picture you take.

6. Are there some qualities or aspects of film photography which digital will never be able to replicate or replace? If so, will these aspects of photography die with film?

I think nowadays, digital photography can look very similar to film photography. I think the main differences are in the output and in the approach to taking a photograph. The control a photographer has over the image he/she is producing, there is way more trial and error in digital whereas in film, you have to set up all the aspects and measure correctly before you even think about taking a picture and I think that aspect will die with film, but I hope film does not die.

7. Will the ‘camera’, as we (still) think of it, even remain as a distinct device? Or will ‘camera’ become just one of a plethora of multimedia features people expect to find on any number of hybrid consumer appliances?

I think there will always be “camera”. There might be cameras in appliances also but I feel there will always be a more professional camera that gives the user more control over the image they are producing.

8. A few years back, Magnum photographer Eliott Erwitt was quoted as saying: “Digital manipulation kills photography. It’s enemy number one.” He also disdained digital in general, for its ability to produce “an image without effort”. To what extent would you agree or disagree with these sentiments?

I partially agree with the statement that it produces an “image without effort” because anybody can point and shoot a digital camera but there are many photographers who put as much effort into taking a digital photograph as they would a film photograph. I think digital photography has gotten to the point where people can hardly see the difference and it does not mean the image is manipulated. Image manipulation is a different art alltogether. There is a threat in digital photography and it is that it pushes film away.

9. We’re all thoroughly weary of the ‘fix it in Photoshop’ approach. But defenders of digital post-processing often say, “Well, it only does what you used to do in the darkroom.” Is this a valid argument?

Depends what you are fixing in Photoshop. If you are just cropping or color balancing, and spotting, then yes, but Photoshop gives you a lot more tools and you can do a lot more than you could in the darkroom.

10. For how much longer will the general conception of ‘photography’ refer exclusively to static, two-dimensional images? Imminently, 3D is looming, and ‘convergence’ – meaning not just the ability of modern DSLR’s to capture high-definition video, but the compulsion to make use of that functionality – is a current buzzword. Does this trend – photographers becoming film-makers, and vice versa – ignore the important divisions between static and moving images?

There will always be a difference between static and moving images, if the people producing them are the same or different, I don’t think it really matters. If people want to explore new medias and mix moving and still images, then that is up to each person. I don’t think it is a problem to mix them or to do both.

11. Cinema historian David Thomson, in his ‘Biographical Dictionary of Film’, wrote the following, regarding Marilyn Monroe: “She gave great still. She is funnier in stills, sexier, more mysterious, and protected against being. And still pictures may yet triumph over movies in the history of media. For stills are more available to the imagination.” How much more of a contentious statement does that seem today?

I think it is still true. Still images require the viewers’ participation, the story is in the dialogue you have with the picture and the feelings that arise from that. In film, the story is told and you become just a spectator, I don’t think it matters if the static image is digital or film, it still leaves space for interpretation. A lot of younger people know who Marilyn Monroe is but never have seen any of her movies, that confirms how iconic her photographs are.

Originally from Santiago, Chile, Tamara Bogolasky came to New York in 2004 to pursue a career in photography. She received a Certificate in General Studies from the International Center of Photography. It was then that she began photographing at night, a practice that became her staple. She has participated in several group shows in New York, Chicago and Chile and in 2010 she received a MacDowell fellowship. Her latest work is a discovery of the details in nature, color and darkness. Tamara works as a photographer and photo assistant in New York.

Go to Q&A Index Page

Oomska’s ‘Future of Photography’ Series continues…

We presented our interviewees with a set list of questions, and left the matter of in what format and at what length they should answer entirely up to them. Here are Carlein van der Beek’s responses.

1. How and when did you first become interested in photography? What was the trigger which led you to take a serious interest? How different would that trigger be now, with all the changes – technological and otherwise – in photography during the intervening years?

My background is in painting, abstracts, and mixed media. At the art academy where I studied, I was also able to take photography classes. I loved it. It was analogue, of course: black and white, developing your own film, working in the dark room. I have always been purely visual and photography gave me the chance to make images when it was not possible to paint.

The trigger wouldn’t be any different now. As I don’t have space to paint right now, photography is the only way of expressing myself at the moment.

2. Photography is often described as a mixture of art and science. It’s also a medium. How has digital technology altered the way these elements combine to produce what we think of as ‘photography’? Has technology altered that balance?

I switched to digital only 10 years ago. Though I loved working in analogue, I wouldn’t want to go back anymore, or only for a special project. To me, Photoshopping or apping, is – in a way – a kind of chemistry, science as well.

But instead of working with your hands, you have to “see” the process in your head. It did change my way of taking pictures. As my background is mixed media pieces, I am used to “building” images. I did so with painting and now I am able to do so with photography as well. In a way I am painting with photos. So to me digital together with the Photoshopping and apping is a gift that enables me to work the way I want.

3. Prior to the introduction of digital, how much did the equipment you used change over the years? How has digital changed the way you use equipment? How would today’s technology, if you could have used it earlier, have changed your relationship with photography?

I started with a simple camera (Vivitar) my father brought from one of his travels. Somewhere in between I owned a Leica, 35 mm lens only. With switching to digital I started to use zoom lenses as well, which I found very convenient when travelling. And now I work mostly with my iPhone.

With the arrival of Photoshop and apps on the iPhone, my way of working changed a lot, as I mentioned above.

4. How would photography’s great pioneers have embraced and utilised today’s technology? Might Ansel Adams be using software to stitch together panoramas of Yosemite? Would Garry Winogrand be using an iPhone? Would Eadweard Muybridge be experimenting with HDR?

I’d like to think they would at least give it a try!

5. In some ways, digital seems to have ‘won out’ over film. Digital photography is everywhere, while companies such as Nikon and Fuji are discontinuing some of their films and film cameras. Is this process irreversible? Should we care?

As far as I know analogue is making a comeback. From what I saw at exhibits of graduating candidates of the Photo Academies from Holland and Belgium, at least a quarter graduated with analogue work, either film or Polaroid.

Kodak went bankrupt recently, but Polaroid made a restart with the “Impossible Project”. There is still a growing number of Holga/Diana/Lomo photographers. Yes, film is definitely losing ground but will never disappear completely.

6. Are there some qualities or aspects of film photography which digital will never be able to replicate or replace? If so, will these aspects of photography die with film?

I saw the Polaroids made by Julian Schnabel (made with a Polaroid camera as big as a fridge!) and nothing beats the colours, the blur, the grain, the “feel”, the sloppy cut off paper of real film. Same with the work I saw of Sanne Sannes: gorgeous, grainy, moody black and white work. And no. Digital can’t do this. Yet. I really hope that one day grain will replace noise.

7. Will the ‘camera’, as we (still) think of it, even remain as a distinct device? Or will ‘camera’ become just one of a plethora of multimedia features people expect to find on any number of hybrid consumer appliances?

As long as humans will use their imagination and keep being curious and experimenting, cameras will evolve…. smaller, with apps included in DSLRs, iPhones with changeable lenses… and maybe we’ll end up with a chip in our heads with which we can make the pictures we have in our mind or print directly what we see with our eyes.

8. A few years back, Magnum photographer Eliott Erwitt was quoted as saying: “Digital manipulation kills photography. It’s enemy number one.” He also disdained digital in general, for its ability to produce “an image without effort”. To what extent would you agree or disagree with these sentiments?

With all new inventions there will always be people opposing. It is their good right. The world is big enough for all different tastes. I don’t agree with the “an image without effort” without feel for colour/b/w, mood, composition, and form you don’t get a good picture. Digital or not.

9. We’re all thoroughly weary of the ‘fix it in Photoshop’ approach. But defenders of digital post-processing often say, “Well, it only does what you used to do in the darkroom.” Is this a valid argument?

It does what you can do in the darkroom. And more. It is the “and more” where you have to be careful. But as with everything: too much is too much. And I still think that you can’t fix a picture that isn’t sound in the beginning (again, re. form, composition, tension).

10. For how much longer will the general conception of ‘photography’ refer exclusively to static, two-dimensional images? Imminently, 3D is looming, and ‘convergence’ – meaning not just the ability of modern DSLR’s to capture high-definition video, but the compulsion to make use of that functionality – is a current buzzword. Does this trend – photographers becoming film-makers, and vice versa – ignore the important divisions between static and moving images?

I’ll skip this one.

11. Cinema historian David Thomson, in his ‘Biographical Dictionary of Film’, wrote the following, regarding Marilyn Monroe: “She gave great still. She is funnier in stills, sexier, more mysterious, and protected against being. And still pictures may yet triumph over movies in the history of media. For stills are more available to the imagination.” How much more of a contentious statement does that seem today?

I love this statement. It is exactly how I feel it. To me one frame showing an entire movie beats any video. I love to be a one frame storyteller.

Born and raised in the Netherlands, Carlein’s background is in painting, abstracts, and mixed media. She started working with iPhoneography two years ago, and her work began to get noticed in 2011. She has exhibited in galleries in Santa Ana, Berkeley, and Los Angeles. Ten of her pieces were included in the Eyephoneography #2 exhibition in Madrid in May 2011.

In February 2012, Carlein’s work will be featured at the prestigious Latitudes international photography Festival in Huelva, Spain. She is currently working on an iPhone book that will be published in spring 2012 by National Geographic.

Go to Q&A Index Page