A Lack of Soul?

February 9, 2011 @ 11:12PM

A Lack of Soul?

By John Neel

Before I get too many people adding prejudiced comments about the pros and cons of digital imaging versus film, I want to emphasize that I am not putting digital down. Nor am I trying to make a point for film. I am a digital photographer as well as a film photographer. This is not a pro or con discussion about film vs. digital.

Rather, I am asking if there is a difference between the kinds of images that used to be taken with film in comparison to what we are seeing with digital from a spiritual point of view. I am not alone in asking the question.

In looking at the offerings of new technology photography, I am finding very few images that have a specific quality that dominates the works of the great film photographers of film technology. Most of what I see today seems sterile, vapid and trite, by comparison. There seems to be something significant that is missing.

Somehow there is a difference that many of my contemporaries as well as myself feel is missing from the current process. I want to find out what that something is.

When we look at the works of great photographers such as Robert Frank, Mary Ellen Mark, André Kertész, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Lee Friedlander, Gary Winogrand, Ansel Adams, Atget or any of hundreds of photographers who have given us amazing images produced with film, there seems to be a magical or mystical presence that is missing from most of what I would call rather trite and unimaginative images being produced by digital means today.

When a photographer really connects with his subject, there is a transformation beyond the obvious, beyond the likeness of the subject. There is a sense of something else, which is somehow conveyed in a surprising or magical manner. A metamorphosis takes place that we as a viewer can see, feel and understand because the subject has been transformed into something bigger and more profound. The subject becomes a metaphor or symbol for deeper consideration. For me this is a necessary step in the creation or capture of a powerful image. It is photography at its finest. There is much more to the image than appearance. A deeper message is formed. Communication and learning takes place. We become bigger and smarter because the image speaks to us in a deeply articulate way.

Yet, I find this quality scarce in the digital images that I have seen of late.

Is this because there is difference between the two technologies, which allows the magic to be captured more easily with one medium over the other? Is one more naked than the other? Here again, I am not discussing the differences in technique as much as I am in the ability of the photographer to capture the essence of the subject through either process.

Surely, digital allows a more economical workflow in terms of time and effort. But is there a difference in how a moment is captured. Does film allow the capture to be more transcendent? Is there a higher possible spiritual attainment with a film camera than with a digital camera? Does one technology provide a better capability to transport us to a higher level of understanding beyond the mere representation of a subject?

Personally, I believe that there is a major difference and worth an investigation. For many photographers, film seems more genuine as a medium because to them, it has the ability in the right hands to capture something we could refer to as soul. To me, soul is an essential part of a higher form of image making. It makes the difference between a simple rendition of a subject and one that rises beyond the subject. To capture soul means capturing something deeper and much more meaningful.

It may be possible that with digital, we have not yet made the leap to a spiritual connection with our subjects. If so, could it be because we are still in the early phases of digital imaging and that "thing" will become more evident to us as we become better digital photographers? Is the task of digital imaging too easy or possibly too difficult or distracting that we fail to connect with the subject? Do we pay more attention to the camera and the technology of digital rather than the subject itself? Is it possible that we are better able to become “one” with our subjects with a less complicated medium such as film?

I believe that it is a combination of these and perhaps other circumstances that results in a failure to touch the soul of the subject. And I should say here that film alone does not produce the magic. But, there may be a valid reason that the magic is more prevalent with film.

Personally I think that it is a matter of connecting with your subject in a meditative manner. Awareness and anticipation as well as having genuine concern for the subject matter allows for a better opportunity of becoming one with your subject. I believe that this can happen with either media. It just seems to be less prevalent and more difficult to achieve with digital.

I sense a difference.

Is any of this important to you? If not, why not?

How do we get soul into an image? This will be a topic for another post.

Please read all my posts on Pixiq.

Comments

GlenF

1 year ago

Random thoughts... Since digital there has been:

a. An overload of images - less time per view
b. An acceptance of a reduction of quality/detail - web viewing
c. A reduction of investment - each images is known/assumed to be 'cheaper'
d. An explosion of exponents - everyone's an expert.
e. A merging of style - it's sharp, it's detailed, it's good.
f. An overflow of processing - a loss of belief in the fineness of the original art.
g. A simplifying of process - less care per print.
h. An exponentiation of interests - lack of concentration.
i. A faking of film - is it film or is it Photoshop?

I am no film expert and I am no artist but one part of the allure of film to the recipient may be the nostalgia, craftsmanship, care, assumed difficulty of it which takes a second look to appreciate.

Then there is the aesthetic of film - undoubtedly different and unfortunately minimalised - one for a pound or ten for a dollar - does Joe Average have soul? Does google search rank quality? How foten do people visit and view a master print to see the difference (or is 640x480 sRGB going to show it). Will the film artist still become posthumously famous as we realise too late what a mistake was made in not appreciating their craft more.

John Meadows

1 year ago

Interesting post and comment!

What I would add is that for many past photographers there was more of a technical learning curve in learning to take a manual camera and developing the needed skill to get to the point where it became an extension of the photographer, and I can't help but think that extended learning process informed their image creation.

Stacy Gardner

1 year ago

Could it be more about how the world has changed and less about film/digital? I wonder if the pace of the world is faster and if we as a population have "stopped smelling the roses" so to speak.

John Neel

Pixiq Expert

1 year ago

see next comment.

John Neel

Pixiq Expert

1 year ago

Stacy,

Yes I believe that faster pace is a huge problem. I also feel that most of the newer image makers have not studied art or photography enough to know how to see, how to capture the essence and how to create a great image that conveys a message.

I like your "smell the roses" analogy.

Thanks for your response.

John Meadows

1 year ago

To some degree I see Social Media bearing some of the blame for folks not wanting to stop and smell the roses; there is an expectation to shoot images and get them posted on Facebook, etc. as soon as possible, hence products like memory cards with built-in WIFI.

John Neel

Pixiq Expert

1 year ago

Art is the measure of who we are as a culture and therefore it is important that we see its role in helping us have a better understanding of our world, our cultures and as human beings. Education is the answer.

The dissemination of imagery and ideas is extremely important to the growth of our culture. I believe that the digital age had to happen in order to allow for worldwide communication between societies and the individual. For image communication to become an even greater catalyst for human understanding, change and spiritual enlightenment, requires new teaching strategies, which can create a better-educated populace.

We need to teach our children the language of images and its powerful rewards starting at a very young age. As with music, once they understand the real meaning of art and visual communication, their world will become much more habitable.

Truth and understanding leads to Peace.

Keith Skinner

1 year ago

I think the quality you've identified has much more to do with the changes in culture and the pace of life than the materials we use for any of our arts. Agreed that it can be a challenge to replicate some of the tones or other qualities of film images, but not impossible. I moved to the SF Bay Area in 1978. Gone now are many of those places (and people) that would have been the setting for the images similar to those to which you allude. It was a different era. Maybe our souls just aren't so profound right now :-) Isn't the task of the photographer to find the soul of any given place and time, rather than trying to nail an old soul on a new body?

John Neel

Pixiq Expert

1 year ago

Now is the time for us to become more profound in our search for truth in order to find ourselves, our being and our souls. Photography can be the catalyst that allows this to happen. We need to become more aware of truth. I believe that education is the key to enlightenment.

GlenF

1 year ago

Technology was going to set us free to have more time, instead it has become a time thief. 'Instant' and 'free' are now prevalent. Who sponsors artists now? Companies/individuals as benefactors have been overrun by beancounters. I'd like to smell the roses but maybe they've been photoshopped or grown in a giant nursery in some faraway place.

Why is it that, these days, (many) people aren't interesting in asking the 'why' of images or even the 'how'? They are just a given snap,upload,forget. It could get worse before it gets better - in the UK (e.g.) they are closing libraries as austerity measures because big business failed.

GlenF

1 year ago

William F.

1 year ago

Digital capture has enhanced my experience as a photographer. It has furthered my ability to record images of the places I visit and has streamlined my workflow immeasurably, not to mention that it has saved me a lot of money. I still get the same thrill from a well exposed shot of an inspiring subject that I got with film and I continue to be amazed at the work of others who have embraced the digital medium as well. I fail to see how an image captured on acetate has more soul or is more transcendent than one saved to disk. Digital capture has improved the lot of photographers and is superior to film in almost every respect that I can think of. I predict that HDR editing will be accomplished in camera soon and that the crude use of filters will become a thing of the past, thanks to digital. It's a brave new world, I love it.

John Neel

Pixiq Expert

1 year ago

I understand that the technical side of digital photography is far advanced from film. Again I am not arguing that point. I am saying that there is a difference in the capturing of something far more important than a likeness. The photographers of the past were able to capture it.

"Before I get too many people adding prejudiced comments about the pros and cons of digital imaging versus film, I want to emphasize that I am not putting digital down. Nor am I trying to make a point for film. I am a digital photographer as well as a film photographer. This is not a pro or con discussion about film vs. digital."

"…there seems to be a magical or mystical presence that is missing from most of what I would call rather trite and unimaginative images being produced by digital means today."

I believe that it can happen with either one. What I see is a vast number of images that play with technology and very little that find the essence or soul of the subject.

John Meadows

1 year ago

Speaking as someone who shoots both digital and film, from I technical point of view I would not cede the question of technical to digital so quickly. I was at a meetup of primarily medium and large format shooters a couple of weeks back, and seeing the beautiful, indeed stunning large prints they were able to create using an analog process from start to finish served as a showcase for what can be done with film. I still have not seen digital equivalents of that quality.

I think more people need to see prints in person! Compared to that experience, a computer screen is sadly lacking!

John Neel

Pixiq Expert

1 year ago

Exactly! It is a very different experience to see an image up close and in a space where it can be revered. A gallery is a place unlike the computer where you can spend the time it takes to really experience the deeper meanings of a great photograph.

William F.

1 year ago

As a famous photographer once said, "The only difference between a pro and an amateur photographer is the size of his trash can." I think that the same axiom applies to digital as it did to film. Perhaps you are just looking at too many examples of images that should have been deleted. The problem is one of photo saturation in the on-line media, but there are still many sites that provide for edited content and the quality of the digital images there is quite good.

John Neel

Pixiq Expert

1 year ago

You are right. There are many great examples of digital images that have what I am talking about in the article. There certainly are great digital images that can be found. The problem is finding the good stuff. It is simply more difficult to find them because of the abundance of images that should have been culled.

On the other hand, I am trying to get people to think about the images they create and to realize that there is a difference that can happen to make their work more desirable.

Claire

1 year ago

I’ve read with interest what you wrote and also the answers from others. Indeed, I think there are many valid points already made. But I think we should not forget a few possible “distortions” in our view.

- Time. Time passing, it might be that we – as a society – tend to keep the best, or what is believe to be the best, and forget about the rest. Maybe all the “sterile, vapid and trite” photos of the past are simply... forgotten, lost, destroyed, burnt and so on.

- The sheer number of people having a camera today! And the possibility to share our photos with ... the World! If I was born in the 30s, having a camera in the 50s or the 60s, I might have shared my photos with only a few people around me. Now, it is so easy to start my own website or go into the many photo sites where I can show them to everybody. Does that make me a photographer who can show the soul in my photos? Nope. Film or digital won’t make the difference.

I know a few photographers who are taking photos that have soul. So much so, that I am speechless when I look at their photos. And many are using digital. And I also see many film photos that are “sterile, vapid and trite”. And the opposite, but of course!

I wish I would be still alive in... say... 100 years from now. I wonder what would be left of the photos of today. Maybe by that time, they will have separated the wheat from the chaff and keep the best and... “delete” the rest!

Nevertheless, I have to admit that I am less and less touched by photos these days. Too many are indeed “sterile, vapid and trite” as you have said it so well... Even mine. :-)

[Hope my English is understandable... ;-)]

John Neel

Pixiq Expert

1 year ago

A great photograph begins and ends with soul.

Thank you for your comments. I am happy that you have given this your consideration.

I try to write posts that will hopefully inspire people to make wise choices about the subjects they shoot. I hope that they produce the images that will make a difference and end up as the prized wheat.

If soul is the prize, you need to make it happen. In the meantime be touched by those who reveal it in their work. I believe that is how we can achieve it.

Thanks Claire!

Richard Rynkowski

1 year ago

No Soul,unfortunately, true.
The cause...Speed. Point and click, bang, bang, bang.
If the newer photographer had to pay $5.00 every time they pressed the shutter, well you guessed it. First, fewer images, and second, Images that have been thought out, composed and created, not just taken. The key word is "created." It takes time to create.
Want to learn photography? Set your camera to manual, set the focal length to 50mm, turn off auto focus, turn off auto exposure and grab a handheld light meter. Now, go out for the day look at a scene, pre-visualize what you want,and what you want to express, then compose it, meter it, and expose it. I guarantee you will learn photography much faster. First,you will have to think about the feeling, or emotion you want to show, you will have to move to frame and compose, not just zoom. You will learn about using aperture and shutter speeds to get focused attention and sharp images. You'll learn to meter the light and how to use it, or not use it.
Now, continue to shoot manually for a few months and then put your zoom lens back on, and turn on program mode. You'll be surprised...you'll likely turn it all back off and go full manual because you will have learned to create not just capture.
Will there be soul, spirit, emotion and feeling in your images? Well, maybe. Remember, It's a creative process after all.

Richard Rynkowski

1 year ago

It's all about "creation." Pointing a cell phone or a DSLR at something and pressing the button is not creation nor is it intended to be. Its recording the moment. You may share it, show it and print it but don't confuse it with creation. Creation in photography is like creation in any other creative process. Creation, in most cases, envolves emotion, feeling, forethought and even skill. Those who take pictures arn't interested in creation they're interested in taking pictures not creating images. Creation comes from within and you have to purposfully create. For example,you see a flower, you think soft, fragrant, pleasingly sensuous. You may express this with soft focus, warm colors or pastels, you may compose it so to accentuate the soft curves of the petals or leafs. On the other hand, does this flower reflect death to you? How would you express and show this? This, is creation. On the other hand again, just snapping a picture of a "pretty" flower is not creation, its recording an image like an unmanned security camera clicking images of people entering a store.
If you want "soul" in an image you need to create the image to reflect what you visualize it to be.
So, the next time you see a bunch of people taking snapshots with their cell phones, don't confuse it with creating an image. It's a xerox copy of a moment in time, nothing creative about it. Don't worry, digital imagery is new and a novelty. It's like the 8mm movie camera or HD video. Everyone was buying one and shooting home movies but eventually except for those who were really pursuing a creative career the camera went in the camera bag, the bag went in the closet and wasn't seen again until next Christmas.

David Schloss

1 year ago

I think John is hitting on the main issue with the assertion that digital is killing the soul of photography.

Prior to digital in order to see a photo it was necessary to look at a printed example of it. You'd look at magazines, at galleries, billboards, etc. There was a culling process that occurred before you got to see photos.

Anyone who ever sat through a slide show (on a carousel) of E6 from someone's family trip or looked at a fresh set of prints from someone's kid's birthday party knows that film had the potential to be equally deadening. But it was expensive and cumbersome and the people who were lousy photographers didn't tend to succeed, and they soon ran out of people to show their photos to.

Digital photographs come in many forms but they're vastly more available than film images. It takes nothing more than a screen to display an image. As a result we're all looking at vastly, vastly more photos than we would have in the film era. The signal to noise ratio has changed, not the soul of the photographer. You're now able to see infinitely more dross than you would have. It just would not have been possible with film.

In other words with film you were mostly looking at the result of the artistic process but with digital you're largely seeing the result of the *communication* process.