Forest Seat
Saturday, 31. October 2009, 02:49:12
There's a scene in Ridley Scott's science fiction film, Bladerunnner, where one of the renegade androids tells of his failure to recover his small set of personal photographs. One of these prints, found and analyzed by the hero, will move the plot forward, but, beyond that, the scene is particularly poignant for dfferent reasons.Bladerunner, like all truly fine future-based science-fiction stories, mixes together the past, present and the future. A film print appears to be anachronism in this setting, but it serves the vital role of humanizing the genetically-engineered replicants. At the time this film was made, the early 1980s, snapshots and film prints were still by far the most prevalent form of photography. Now film is practically dead and an explosion of digital images has replaced it. The unique and tangible artifact, the print, has been replaced by infinitely reproducible images displayable on a pantheon of different devices.
I like this. Still, I feel little doubt that digitization has changed the nature of photography irrevocably, somewhat analogous to the way that the first photographs changed the nature of portrait painting. It has made the infrequent common-place and in doing so has altered the weight of the art. These days it is not uncommon for me to go out and shoot well over 100 photographs in a single day, and I will find a small subset of those to be particularly pleasing, but no more can I reproduce the particular sense of uniqueness that I associate with those solitary snapshots taken when I was much younger.
This is a loss. Even if I have much better equipment, and a considerably better knowledge of photography to compensate.
These thoughts came to me as I regarded a scan of a very old photographic print this evening. The photograph was taken sometime in the late 1970s/early 1980s. It's faded and the color-balance is off. It was taken with a cheap camera and developed by a commercial machine. None of the skills I have learned in the years since went into taking the shot. It's fairly anonymous - there is no particular resonance in the scene with some particularly significant location or event. It's just a path coming out of Chantry Wood near Guildford, Surrey, where I grew up. I walked those woods dozens of times.
Yet, for some reason, I felt drawn to the wooden seat you see in the photograph above. I blew it up, reminding myself in the process of how the grain of analog film differs from the pixels of digital images (despite the fact that what you see is a digitized version). It's fuzzy yet despite the indistinct appearance, I find myself mentally drawn to that seat. I want to sit in it and smell the fragrance of those blurred red flowers all around it. At one time, I might have actually done so - I simply don't remember. But I was there once, looking at that scene with better eyes than I have now.
A single moment in time. One of countless other moments, most of which pass by without any real engagement at all. But this moment was caught, carelessly or not so carelessly - again I simply don't recall. And here it is, a faded print from a box scanned into a computer file. It is not only a window into another time, it is also a window into another window, a different way of seeing. One I hope I do not lose.

















sanshan # 31. October 2009, 04:01
I love the faded colours of your prints. Nostalgic. It's so easy to see that they were taken in the 70's/80's.
L2D2 # 31. October 2009, 04:16
I never was much of a picture taker when film was used so much, but since I got my digital, and especially since I joined OC, I have used it, more and more. I, too, do not print out pictures, only rarely, but I have the option of printing them with my printer dock or my HP all-in-one inkjet printer.
Stardancer # 31. October 2009, 08:10
BabyJay99 # 31. October 2009, 11:50
ricewood # 31. October 2009, 16:42
musickna # 31. October 2009, 18:42
There is more sentiment there. Difficult to quantify, but it must relate both to the age and the rarity of the artifact. As San suggests, perhaps prints from digital images will take their place. I hope so.
talatkm # 1. November 2009, 00:52
36 pictures per roll. hence the picture taker took more time in framing, lighting and so on...)pictures, memory is the only limit and then there is photoshoping the picture to death...
In short, if you have an eye and a sense of personal ecstatic and style. the person will bring this to the picture .
Also pictures sets of feeling of that time...soft and fuzzy as our memory..
Regards,
tkm
edwardpiercy # 2. November 2009, 21:27
In any case there were certainly different standards for film. Many of Henri Cartier's best photos would be considered way too grainy today. Which is why I think that now there is too much influence on technical matters.
Great reading and thanks for the post!
musickna # 2. November 2009, 21:55