Film photography is regrettably declining in popular use. From its position at the top of Christmas lists, the film camera has been forced into the specialist realm by digital photography. It used to be the case that most families would own a film SLR or at the least an automatic camera of some sort; now such items signal artists and poseurs. Needless to say there are advantages to the rise in digital photography, but when eating away at the film photography market, perhaps the effect this is having on photography needs to be questioned.
The popularity of digital cameras has had a few devastating effects on the film photography industry. Specialist shops such as Jessops are aimed almost entirely at digital camera users, stocking little film-related equipment at an increased price - even the film processing departments have been pared down. The reason for this change in focus by retailers is purely profit-driven; the digital market is where the money lies for photography shops, and consequently they are selling less and less film and at a greater price. If more people used film, the price would go down and more would be on sale. However, this change needs to happen at the hands of the shops rather than the consumers; the prices need to go down first, and the film camera promoted as a genuine alternative to digital, before the market is revived. By limiting the film photography market in this way, the shops not only force those who use film to pay more and more, but they are also manipulating the death of film photography entirely. Polaroid film is now no longer produced, and it can’t be long before all film photography is pushed out by its digital counterpart.
Film photography is something that should not be forgotten with time. One of the greatest misfortunes in the decline of film photography is that the quality of digital pales in comparison. Even dSLRs fail to meet the standards of film SLRs, producing flat, two-dimensional prints rather than deep, full colour photos. With this in mind, it’s not surprisingly that the average digital camera offers little in the way of creative flexibility, and little variety in photographic quality. In contrast, film produces much more authentic looking photos; even the slightest change in light and timing can produce an entirely different photograph. Digital cameras may offer the chance to view any photo seconds after being taken, but little compares to collecting a film roll 3 days later to find a beautiful accident produced from a slip of the hand, or a slight fracture of sunlight.
The expansion and development of the digital photography market has meant that, after the initial price of a camera, photography is essentially free. Gone are the days when a single photograph actually costs money; consequently, a digital camera owner can take photos like there's no tomorrow. There is no problem with something suddenly becoming free, of course; the transition of any product into the affordable mass market prevents them being limited to the wealthy. What this transition does mean, however, is a shift in the meaning of photography as a concept. Consider the Polaroid; at £1 a pop, it is perhaps the epitome of expensive photography. As a consequence any Polaroid camera owner with half a brain is extremely careful who or what they photograph. A treasured moment or special occasion. And if someone is blinking, that's tough - it captured the moment, now move on. Digital photography removes this need for selectiveness, and as a result what is special about photography is lost. Rather than remaining a considered attempt to capture a certain moment for a particular reason, photography is now a repeated action undertaken carelessly often for no real reason at all. Today’s photos don’t go into photo collections or on walls; they go into endless Facebook albums, to be glanced at once and never viewed again.
Finally, the film camera as an invention, too, is one that should not be constrained within the walls of photography museums. The first photograph was taken in the early 1800s, and the next two centuries saw a continuous advancement in cameras, the flash bulb, and of course the film used to capture photos. The history of the film camera is metaphoric of the human striving for perfection and excellence; the refusal to be satisfied with anything less than the superlative. Given the first digital camera was invented in the 1970s, it represents only a small part of photography’s story, and much of the progression now seems more interested in practicalities, such as size, accessibility and speed, rather than the photography itself. If this decline continues, the film camera will inevitably soon be confined to a permanent position behind display glass, appreciated only as a precursor to the digital age rather than as one of the most ingenious, influential and incredible inventions of all time.
The rise of the digital camera is something that should be appreciated; it has brought an art form away from the rich and to the masses, giving everyone the opportunity to enjoy photography. However, it is clear that digital photography is no longer being marketed as an alternative to film, but as its replacement. While the benefits of digital cameras are significant, their development has come at the cost of film photography, and in capitalism’s unending march towards profit margins, a truly great art from is being lost.
No comments:
Post a Comment