Photography is a medium that has dated back to around the 15th-16th century, as a way of documenting and capturing certain events and locations in still frame. The camera obscura was the first known use of image projection, which has theoretically been around since 30000BC. The oldest actual record of the camera obscura was found in Chinese writings that dated back to around 400BC. Today, photography has developed into one of the most popular forms of media. So, skipping forward from 400BC to the present day, a lot has happened. We have gone from daguerreotypes and calotypes, to dry plates, to film, to instant, and finally, to digital. Now, digital cameras commercially arrived in around the late 80s, and slowly phased their way in. Nowadays, it’s basically the standard format that we use in photography, and for good reason, too. The fact that you can essentially take an infinite amount of shots, without wasting film, and transfer files to a computer for post-production is super convenient for getting the perfect shot. So, why are people starting to go back to analogue? Recently, a new model of instant camera was release by Fujifilm, which was popular amongst the hipsters and such. After coming so far with our technology, why are we going back to such a flawed way of capturing imagery? I guess it’s not so much of a nostalgia thing, as polaroids were more of a 60s thing. In a small article by Debra Livingstone, she briefly reminisces about analogue processes while using Instagram, and “[wonders] if younger users of the instant process and upload will think it new”, as if analogue is an ancient relic forgotten by time (Livingstone, Debra. 2011). Instead, I feel like it’s more of a sentimental thing. In Peter Buse’s article, he mentions that Tom Gunning, a Professor of Art History, and Cinema and Media at the University of Chicago, states that “the shift from chemical to digital has not radically transformed the basic status of the photographic image” (Buse, Peter. 2010). To be honest, I kind of disagree with this statement. Because of what you can do with a digital camera nowadays, digital photography is all about getting the perfect and most aesthetically pleasing shot. It’s more about the beauty of the image. Using an instant camera, which, unlike a digital camera, has a limited amount of shots, a lot more effort and care is put into photos. This makes them feel more authentic and real, because, as Steven Skopik puts it, “Digital imaging, which allows alteration without detection, stimulates some question to the photograph’s tether to actuality”. And, because getting a perfect shot with an instant camera is damn near impossible, the idea of it is that instead of capturing the beauty, it captures the moment. Another thing about instant photography is that it’s just fun. Having a tangible print come straight out of the camera makes the whole idea feel more authentic.
In this media piece, I have attempted to capture and express the sentiment of instant photography. I basically took a series of digital photographs, depicting a series of polaroid pictures hung up on walls. I wanted to try and capture the sentiment and the meaning of analogue photography, while still using a digital camera and post-production to get an aesthetically pleasing shot.
<Livingstone, Debra. ‘Digital Nostalgic Moments’ in Social Alternatives Vol 30 p.46. 2011>
<Buse, Peter. ‘Polaroid into Digital: Technology, Cultural Form, and the Social Practices of Snapshot Photography’ in Journal of Media and Cultural Studies. April 2010>
<Skopik, Steven. ‘Digital Photography: Truth, Meaning, Aesthetic’ in History of Photography. 2003>