Oomska’s ‘Future of Photography’ Series commences…
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 Ed Swinden’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 became interested in photography while working as a reporter for a Press Agency. I was sent out on assignments with a photographer and was always excited to see how they would capture the story with their camera. Photography became a serious interest when I had the opportunity to photograph celebrity guests (usually musicians) to the Radio 1 show for which I worked in Manchester. It’s very hard to say how changes in technology would have changed the trigger….but quite possibly nowadays I would have been expected to take pictures as well as write stories when working for a Press Agency, so I would never have learned the important lessons I learned from the talented photographers I worked with then. However, the much lower cost of digital camera equipment might have enabled me to jump in sooner, and learn more. I think that the fact everyone is taking, uploading and sharing photos now would make it harder for me to have decided to take up photography as a career.
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 think its a red herring. Nothing has really changed when you break things down to the bare bones.
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?
There’s always new advances in equipment and although I probably upgraded cameras more in the early days of digital, when quality was improving dramatically in a short space of time, I think now we are at a stage comparable to how things were with analogue photography before, so I’m not upgrading any more now than I would have then. Digital has changed the way I use equipment in that I shoot a lot more than I did because of the zero-cost factor. And I experiment more with exposure. I probably take more risks because I can usually tell instantly if they have paid off or if I need to reshoot. I think if I’d had the technology earlier I probably would be less technically proficient, but I might have captured some great images that I never had chance to shoot.
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 don’t think it’s really helpful to imagine whether they would or not. They were of their age. We are of our age.
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 only care if the loss of these products makes it impossible to do something we previously could have. And if that thing is important. If it is important then the process will probably be reversed. So I’m not worried.
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?
There really isn’t such a thing as a digital negative, whatever anyone says. The unique artefact that is directly created by light and chemicals.
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?
Yes, it will continue to exist. Not everyone will want a device that has multiple operations. Just like some people still wear wristwatches, even though their phone has a clock on it.
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 disagree. Manipulation of any kind in news reporting is wrong, but in other fields it is perfectly acceptable. In a documentary context the manipulation should not alter the ‘truth’ of the story, but I think it is acceptable to make things more aesthetically-pleasing in post-production. There are some pictures that can be made more beautiful and telling in a metaphorical way because of new technology than in the past. I would draw a comparison with music. Good production and mixing brings out the best in a piece of music…lack of production makes it lifeless or muddy, too much production makes it sound unreal.
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?
I think I gave my view on this pretty much above.
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?
Photographers have often gone on to work with moving images in the cinema or television. There are ‘Directors of Photography’ for all serious movies. The distinction between still and moving will remain both in people’s minds and in reality. More stills photographers may try to shoot video – well or badly!
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 has the same relevance.
Based in Manchester, and covering the north of England, Ed Swinden has been a freelance photographer since 2004. When he’s not making portraits of pop stars, politicians and actors, documenting urban regeneration, or ensuring a city’s latest bar or restaurant looks its best, he’s travelling far and wide in search of new angles on modern life for one of his exhibitions or publications. Ed’s pictures have appeared in the Independent on Sunday, on the front page of The Times, and in numerous magazines and journals.
His artwork has been featured in publications including The British Journal of Photography, Ag, Aesthetica, and Digital Photographer. In 2005 he published his first softback entitled Lost and Stolen. Ed has since been working on a number of other book projects ranging from fine art to documentary. Prints of Ed’s work have been exhibited at – among other places – Manchester’s Northern Quarter Gallery, Sketch 360 Studios, Salford’s Chapman Gallery, the BBC, Chorlton Arts Festival, Heaton Park, London’s Clarion Gallery, The Royal Exchange Theatre, and 5A The Gallery, St. Helens. Prints from Ed’s prize-winning “Shoot the Street” project, were exhibited at the FORMAT International Photography Festival, Derby, in March 2011.