Icons as Fact, Fiction, and Metaphor Reflection

Since wet/darkroom photography has been around since the beginning of filmmaking there is a certain familiarity with the process.  Along with familiarity often comes trust.  I would argue that more people implicitly trust wet/darkroom photography than the digital processes because the process required to create wet/darkroom photography leaves less room for altering.  In today’s society, we are constantly in the presence of digital photography.  Digital photography by many is seen as more advanced and technological.  With technology however, comes uncertainty.  The magazines, billboards, and website advertisements around us are almost all unquestionably altered in some way.  I believe this digital altering in advertisement and marketing gives the perception that any digital photography cannot be trusted.        

Although at first one might believe these assumptions to be true, they are not necessarily accurate in all cases.  In the essay, “Icons as Fact, Fiction and Metaphor”, Phillip Gefter uses many historical photos to illustrate that wet/darkroom photography can be deceptive in many different ways.  One such example includes “Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter, Gettysburg, 1863,” by Gardner.  Gerfter points out that wet/darkroom photography such as this piece can be “staged” to give the appearance of authenticity.  I would argue that both types of media (film or digital) are susceptible to this kind of deception.  It may be easier to alter the original photo in a digital format however it is not impossible to do so in darkroom photography either.  I believe in general people will be more trusting of older technology until something newer arrives.  So even though there is little basis of fact in proving deception occurs more readily in digital form, people will continue to believe this until they are more comfortable with it. 

The actual differences between digital photography and wet/darkroom photography are similar to the differences between an analog watch and a digital watch.  With an analog watch you can observe a mechanism changing from one state to another, much like processing digital film.  With a digital watch the numbers on the dial can change dramatically from one state to another with no indication of how it happened, this is similar to digital photography, and editing.  With a click of a button someone can change a subject’s skin tone, or turn a sunset into a sunrise.  In general editing digital photography is easier, and it takes less effort to manipulate a piece than the analog equivalent.  Therefore, I believe there is a grain of truth in arguing the validity of many digital works.  Basically, the effort required to manipulate digital works can be done with skill and keystrokes, the effort required to manipulate darkroom photography can require actor’s props, and arguably more time.

The debate over the perceived authenticity of darkroom or digital photography is really a debate of old versus new.  There was an equal amount of deception and editing with film as there is with digital media, it was only executed differently.  The trust that photographers get from the public is, and always has been directly linked to their credibility, which is all the more disappointing when they turn out to be hoaxes.