Art Business News, Oct, 2006 by Barden Prisant

While it may not have the same ring to it, the digital revolution is forcing us all to think in these terms. Of course, new technologies have always brought about paradigm shifts. In the words of the French photographer, Jean-Francois Rauzier, "when photography came along, it created a problem for the world of painting." Now, that digitization has come along, has it created a problem for the world of photography?

According to Stephen Cohen, director of photo new york, "learning digital is another career." Any of us who have tried to make sense of the panoply of settings on a digital camera will empathize. We may know how to take a basic snapshot, but most of us haven't mastered the miscellany of available options.

Photographer Ken Haas, Sharon Springs, NY, believes that this is just fine since, "in the public eye, photography is a visual tape recorder. For most people, it is just a way of keeping a record."

However, for a professional "art photographer," this is not enough. Brian Clamp, of Clamp Art in New York, observes that "the vast majority of (art) photographers use some digital component." Yet, how much they use, and how they use it, is a personal choice. In the words of Chalfont, PA-based Alex Novak, editor of the I Photo newsletter, "photographers ... are skittish about digital; we are starting to see change, though it is not yet total."

In what direction, then, is the digital revolution starting to take the world of art photography? To answer the question, one must consider the three phases inherent in the creation of a photo: image capture, image manipulation, and image printing.

With the ubiquity of digital cameras, one would naturally assume that professionals always use them, too.

One also would be wrong.

"I've seen very few using digital cameras," says Novak, and Clamp agrees. "Most artists are still shooting film and then scanning; I only show one who starts with digital images." The main reason, it would seem, is the limitation placed upon the resolution that can be achieved in the digital realm. The current crop of cameras designed to replace the venerable 35mm Nikon yields images that, according to Clamp, can only be realistically enlarged to 22 x 17 inches. After that, they develop the jagged edges and distortions, which we have all seen when overenlarging a jpeg.

One very noticeable trend in art photography is the interest in creating monumental prints. To "go large," according to Yosefa Drescher of Yosefa Drescher Fine Art, West Hartford, CT, you need to start with a medium format camera, whose film is approximately three to four times the size of 35mm. For that you need to go analogue. Of course, to subsequently take advantage of the available digital manipulation programs, you must scan the image digitally. "That is the way they are usually doing it," she observes.

Once a photographer has a digital and or digitized image in hand, just what can he or she do with it using today's digital manipulation programs?

"It gives you God-like control over every pixel," enthuses Haas. In light of this newfound power, one might wonder just how much manipulation is considered "appropriate." According to Novak, this is where digital has created "a big split in photographers' eyes." It would seem that there are two main schools of thought on this issue: one advocates restraint and the other adventure.

Some collectors would argue that even a restrained use of digital manipulation violates the tenet that a photo must be "100 percent true" to the image which entered the lens of the camera. Yet, photographers themselves have always known that this was not the case. "It was never the truth," declares Drescher. "Even in the old days, manipulating light and shade, you could change so much of so-called reality [in the darkroom]."

For whatever reason, though, there are those who have made a conscious decision to make only limited use of the many tools offered by programs such as Photoshop.

Lisa Holden of Antwerp, Belgium, for example, shoots a digital photo and then prints from it an image so large that the edges start to jag. Then, she hand paints over the distorted areas and subsequently rephotographs the result. According to I Photo's Novak, who sells Holden's works, Holden prints the "rephotographs" in small editions and sells them for $5,000-7,000 each; (the handpainted originals are also available for $10,000 each.)

Another advocate of the restrained use of technology is Marc Yankus of New York. According to Clamp, of Clamp Art, Yankus takes a digital photo and then simply layers over it textures scanned from old tintypes or books. It might just be considered a reworking of the old double negative concept.

Both Holden and Yankus are using their relatively "low-tech" manipulations to generate images that look very much like 19th century paintings. Those of Holden exhibit the jewel-like colors and off-kilter sensibilities of the Pre-Raphaelites, while, if you squint your eyes, a piece by Yankus could be mistaken for a turn-of-the-century Paris street scene.