Never has the analogue versus digital debate been dealt such a resounding death knell as the current Digital? Analogue! exhibition at Huis Marseille, one of the Netherlands’ leading non-profit photo galleries. I admire Huis Marseille for regularly taking a very specific concept and trying to fit an exhibition around it. It shows bravery for going off the beaten track of the generic retrospective so beloved by other photo galleries. The downside is that the results can be utterly disappointing, as is the case in Digital? Analogue!
The exhibition is centred around the gradual disappearance of analogue photography, and more specifically, the passing of dedicated analogue photo labs. Many excellent Dutch photographers are represented in the show, their works accompanied by texts in which they ponder on their experience with one particular professional printer. As endearing as the anecdotes are, the writings make painfully clear that photographers are generally not the best writers. The stories are repetitive and quite boring. Moreover, the exhibition feels too much like one big advert for a specific photo lab in Amsterdam, rather than providing insights into analogue printing methods.
The result is a jumble of very beautifully printed pictures, but differing in conceptual and technical content, size, and type of framing. Some effort has been made to separate the artists into different categories, so as to enable the viewer to make more sense of the different groupings. But the categories feel forced and ambiguous.
The only criterion for inclusion in the show is whether the works have been printed in an analogue manner by said photo lab. The result is a jumble of very beautifully printed pictures, but differing in conceptual and technical content, size, and type of framing. Some effort has been made to separate the artists into different categories, so as to enable the viewer to make more sense of the different groupings. But the categories feel forced and ambiguous.
More to the point of this article, the exhibition has felt it necessary to lament the quiet passing of analogue photography. This mourning seems very outdated indeed. Now I have personally been a very late adopter of digital photography. My own photographic career started out with an old and battered Praktika SLR, moving on to a Pentax K1000 and then to my pride and joy, the Leica R5. Thanks to these old beasts I have had to train myself in correct usage of apertures and shutter speeds. The expenses of shooting film, especially slide film, has forced me to think about composition and lighting in advance and to think twice about whether a scene is worth depicting at all.
More to the point of this article, the exhibition has felt it necessary to lament the quiet passing of analogue photography. This mourning seems very outdated indeed.
Analogue photography has some charming characteristics digital photography lacks. I love the tangibility of slides. I enjoyed the many magical hours spent in the dark room, waiting for the print to show up slowly in the developing tray. However, I also cursed the many times that I screwed up the mixing of the chemicals or the timing of development. I regretted the wasted proof prints. I winced at the rising costs of film, chemicals and paper. My development as a photographer was much hindered by the delay between shooting and finally seeing the results.
For a long time I refused to switch over as I believed that digital was not quite up there yet with analogue. But it is safe to say that this time has passed long since. I achieve better results with Photoshop than I could ever have dreamed off in the dark room. I can now achieve stunning results using high ISO values and adjustable white balancing; results impossible to get with film shot at the same ISO speeds and having to use flash instead to compensate for indoor lighting. The amount of time I have gained by processing my pictures digitally is enormous. I appreciate that a knowledgeable analogue printer can make a real difference to a photograph, but so can a digital retoucher and printer.
[The gallery] shows bravery for going off the beaten track of the generic retrospective so beloved by other photo galleries. The downside is that the results can be utterly disappointing
So why do some artists insist on using analogue methods and feel the need for lamenting an out-of-date process? Out of sheer sentimentality? To convey a feeling of nostalgia? For other conceptual motives? Perhaps valid justifications for the artists themselves, but if the difference cannot be seen in the final print, then there is no point. Looking at the works in the exhibition, if I had been told they were all shot and produced with the latest digital equipment, I would have easily believed it.
