Digital Technology is not making us think anymore

Mario Dondero, self portrait with Polaroid, date unknown – Source: Internet

A few days ago, while browsing a Facebook Fan page of a renowned photography shop in Milan, I stumbled upon a small article written by famous photographer Mario Dondero entitled: “Digital technology is not making us think anymore”.
The punchlines from the article where:
“What matters most is not the instrument being used but the result. What matters are the mind, the education and sensitivity of the photographer. The photographer’s mind is more important than anything else […] Digital technology has destroyed a job, or maybe it has created a new one although the act of taking pictures has lost all the mystery, all the magic […] One hope is left: an old way of taking pictures is gone, but not the necessity to report about life”.

Mario Dondero: Orson Welles and P.Paolo Pasolini on the set of “La Ricotta” (1963) – Source: Internet

I have followed the debate among the comments on the Fan Page and I’ve given my contribution to it as well. I thought it would have been a good idea to share my opinion with others, so I’m reporting a translation of the comment I’ve written:
Photography is a recording medium which has acquired within the short time of its existence an important and ever increasing semantic variety constituted by the most appropriate technical elements for such task. What Dondero underlines relating to the importance of the photographer’s mind is sacred. Since I agree with McLuhan‘s opinion when he affirms that the medium is the message, the photographic language with which we are willing to communicate must be chosen with the due awareness of the medium through which it will be expressed and vice versa. Since it appears almost instinctive for human beings to search for languages which allow the maximum communication efficiency with the least expenditure of energy, the development of digital technology seems natural. This does not preclude the possibility of expressing one’s self through previous languages, if not the availability of mediums considered progressively obsolete, onerous and therefore, according to the current trends, anti-economical. I’m sure that film photography will hold a niche of die hard fans (among which myself) and therefore such medium will be kept in production for many years ahead in the most appropriate varieties according to the market requests at a more expensive price, but never prohibitive. Digital technology is just at its beginning; I’m sure that many users, either professionals or amateurs, will be able to greatly benefit from it creating images not less significant than the ones taken in the past. What remains fundamental is a good education towards the use of languages, not only nonverbal ones, and a solid overall knowledge.

An Ode to Film

Some companies have stopped making it. Other companies have cut down its production. A few brave companies are still keeping it up.

This is an ode to film: the most reliable photographic medium on earth.

My current film stash, directly from my fridge.

When you are looking for true quality, depth, tonal range and richness of details from an image, then film is the answer to that question.

While pictures taken with most digital cameras may seem more crispy on the screen, the truth comes out in the moment where even a high ultra inkjet giclée print is compared to another one obtained by an old fashioned chemical process. The inkjet print will most likely appear as “flat” or “cold” by comparison.

Images shot on film possess an aura that digital prints will never have.

If correctly preserved, film strips and sheets have proven to last for over 100 years, while the same can’t be surely declared for a digital file, prone to irreversible numeric corruption which leads to a loss of data. What will happen to all those family memories shot on your nifty 18 megapixel camera or smartphone? Think about it…

You only get 36 shots per roll on a 35mm canister, from 8 to 16 shots on a 120 film roll (depending on the camera format), and just two shots on any sheet of large format film. Such limitation, together with its cost, forces us to consider what is really worth taking a picture of and what is not. It enhances our photographic vision, usually leading to better results.

Colle dei Signori, Italy (2009) – Taken with a Hasselblad 500C/M and Ilford FP4 film.

Film has a price worth every cent of the sweat and passion of the very few workers who are still producing it. The satisfaction of a good photograph taken on film is priceless.

Film. If you keep buying it, they’ll keep making it.

Buy film, not megapixels.

The importance of being printed

Digital image files have allowed us to instantly share visual contents with the whole world. This is a good thing.

Since the swarming diffusion of digital captures, many photographs have lost what used to be their primary purpose: to be printed on a suitable surface. This is not a good thing.

The consumer market, mainly composed by family shooters and dedicated amateurs, is hardly printing any pictures anymore, either for their family albums or presentation portfolios.

In many cases, the possibility through a digital camera to delete and retake a picture a potentially infinite amount of times has numbed the value related to the photograph that is being taken.

May it be a family vacation shot or a well executed landscape, I believe in the importance of memories when associated to images.

Pictures from my grandmother’s family album.

This is the reason why I provocatively affirm that photographs we’d like to take either for personal or memory purposes should be shot on film.

The limitations and reliability given by film allow us to focus on our subjects and those moments we’d like to preserve as long as possible.

Digital captures are ephemeral by nature. Their main purpose is to visually communicate in the least expensive and most efficient way to the widest audience. It’s the gift of science to the media and social networks.

A postcard from Vernazza, Cinque Terre, Italy – Taken with Hipstamatic

The importance of an image being printed is the enjoyment of the medium’s content. The tendency of photo printing companies to offer custom photo book sets for a consumer audience follows such trend. Either the images are from a digital file or film, creating a real photo album, in the end, is the best thing.

What are your favorite cameras?

Such question seems inevitable among photography lovers all over the world, both professionals and amateurs.

Among the infinite photographic clutter left by over 150 years of optical engineering, I have chosen three cameras which I believe to be the best ever made, both in terms of performance as well as design:

Favorite Camera N° 1: The Leica M3

I only had the chance to pick up this camera twice. I’m currently saving up for it. Built as a tank, sharp, precise, reliable. The Leica M3 features all you will ever need from a 35mm camera. Seeing the world through a rangefinder is an experience which cannot be compared to any SLR. Later M models may boast more features, but the sturdy, warm feel of the M3 remains incomparable.

 Favorite Camera N°2: The Hasselblad 500 C/M

This camera has been given to me as a birthday present in 2008 and I have fallen in love with it ever since. It’s solid, reliable and it offers superb image quality. It allows me to have a contemplative approach to my surroundings without the bulk of larger format equipment. Just like the Leica, later models feature more gimmicks, but the core of the system is already there.

 Favorite Camera N°3: The Polaroid SX-70

This is probably one of the coolest designed objects of the 20^th Century as well as being a truly revolutionary camera. Instant photography has an aura of its own. A very powerful one, I might add. I own a later model featuring a Sonar autofocus system, although I’m thinking of buying a manual focus version being it easier to carry around.

So there you have my two cents concerning photo gear. I honestly don’t have much interest in other cameras, although I do use them and I find them way more versatile, I don’t find myself as happy or satisfied as taking pictures with what I’ve mentioned above. In the end, it’s just a matter of personal taste.