Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

nickthetasmaniac · 06-09-2011, 06:17 PM

Hi everyone, I had a bit of an odd questions.

I'm currently writing my Honours thesis for a Masters of Architecture degree. For the thesis I'm undertaking a series of extended hikes to explore how extreme isolation and exposure influence a person's perception, experience and memory of place, and the subsequent roll of remote architecture.

Anyway, photography is one of the key research methods I'm using, and I've hit a bit of a brick wall theory wise. The vast majority of well regarded photographic theorists and authors wrote in a pre-digital context, and as such their writing doesn't take into account the paradigm shift that digital photography, specifically the instant-review nature of digital, has caused with respect to perception and memory of place.

So, can anyone recommend scholarly texts that discuss the process of digital photography in detail? I'm basically after a post-digital version of Sontag's On Photography.

Cheers, Nick

stevbike · 06-09-2011, 06:46 PM

I have a book by Tom Ang Published by DK . It is called the "Digital Photographers Handbook". It has a lot of information regarding all parts of the digital photograghers world from camera types to post production. It is highly recommented by the people at Coles and Chapters for anyone needing to know more about the digital world of photography. It is simply written and easy to read. I think it show help you out.

nickthetasmaniac · 06-09-2011, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by stevbike

I have a book by Tom Ang Published by DK . It is called the "Digital Photographers Handbook". It has a lot of information regarding all parts of the digital photograghers world from camera types to post production. It is highly recommented by the people at Coles and Chapters for anyone needing to know more about the digital world of photography. It is simply written and easy to read. I think it show help you out.

Thanks for replying. I had a look at some online reviews and it seems to be a guide to how to go about digital photography?

I'm not sure I was clear, what I'm looking for is reference material that discusses photography from a theoretical stand point. So how the act of photography influences how we perceive and interpret landscapes and moments.

Brooke Meyer · 06-09-2011, 07:25 PM - **1 Like**

Using Sontag as a milestone is silly. She was anything but scholarly. You'd be way better off reading Ray Kurzweil. I've no idea what post digital photographic theory means. What is demonstrable is that the digitization of information, visual or otherwise, changes us a lot. Witness the corporate and social autism enabled by ironically named "Smartphones". We stare at screens expecting infallible answers and drive off the cliff, obedient to the GPS. It is in a sense, a surrender of self reliance, similar to what followed the Ionians.

The organism, homo sapiens, changes much more slowly than Moore's Law. A disconnect and lack of understanding our real, physical world is the worry. The distraction of technological "bread and circuses" is the cultural opiate.

philbaum · 06-09-2011, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac

Thanks for replying. I had a look at some online reviews and it seems to be a guide to how to go about digital photography?

I'm not sure I was clear, what I'm looking for is reference material that discusses photography from a theoretical stand point. So how the act of photography influences how we perceive and interpret landscapes and moments.

That's quite a scholarly question. I guess the precedent might be the impact of the polaroid camera which provided almost instant prints. In any case, you might check with the art department of your academic institution and see if they have any analysis of the topic. I'm not sure how you separate out digital still photography from digital video photography like Youtube sites.

Best wishes,

nickthetasmaniac · 06-09-2011, 07:49 PM

Just to clarify, within the project photography is a research method, not the subject itself.

What I'm researching is experience, photography is just a tool. But to understand the results I need to understand the tool... And as an interpretive tool, digital photography is very different to film photography.

**ashurbanipal** · 06-09-2011, 08:05 PM

I'm not sure that this is quite what you're looking for, but "After Photography" by Fred Ritchin might be worth checking out. There's also a blog: After Photography What is next?

nickthetasmaniac · 06-09-2011, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by ashurbanipal

I'm not sure that this is quite what you're looking for, but "After Photography" by Fred Ritchin might be worth checking out. There's also a blog: After Photography What is next?

Thanks, that's a really interesting blog! I'll see if I can chase the book down, unfortunately my University library is a bit slow on photographic literature...

nickthetasmaniac · 06-09-2011, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Brooke Meyer

Using Sontag as a milestone is silly. She was anything but scholarly. You'd be way better off reading Ray Kurzweil. I've no idea what post digital photographic theory means. What is demonstrable is that the digitization of information, visual or otherwise, changes us a lot. Witness the corporate and social autism enabled by ironically named "Smartphones". We stare at screens expecting infallible answers and drive off the cliff, obedient to the GPS. It is in a sense, a surrender of self reliance, similar to what followed the Ionians.

Sontag was just an example. Not a milestone at all but it'd be hard to argue that her's isn't one of the most prominent names when people discuss photography...

When I talk about post-digital photographic theory - within my project I'm using photographs, and asking others to use photographs, to record their experience of place - so the moments and 'things' that make a specific spatio-temporal moment significant.

The question I have, and the reason for this thread, is that I think the research results will be influenced by the use of either film or digital. By using digital, participants can instantly review and delete images, in a sense modifying and updating the experience being recorded. Likewise, self-reflecting on what they've already photographed could potentially influence their interpretation of future moments.

There's quite a lot of literature that discusses self-directed photography as a research method. But in all cases, the researchers have chosen to use film...

wildman · 06-10-2011, 09:10 AM

I don't think you will find it in a published work. It's just too early for that sort of thing.

Work like that may be in academic papers.

If so go to school library and log on here:

ProQuest Login - ProQuest

newarts · 06-10-2011, 09:31 AM

Interesting topic. I'd talk to some of the psychology people about the influence of fast review on what people record and/or remember. Imagine how differently you'd type and write if your computer display were turned off!

Don't forget that digital photography allows the average person much more latitude in purposefully altering the photo to change the story it tells by editing.

martyd14 · 06-10-2011, 10:00 AM

The Shallows
What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains

by Nicholas Carr

I know its not centered on photographic theory per se but i think the effect is the same as what you are talking about. Poor long term memory but short term we can process lots of info. Sounds right up you alley in fact the guy had to do into isolation just to finish the book.

RioRico · 06-10-2011, 10:48 AM

What reality does a post-digital photographic theory model? How can such a theory be tested? Will the tests be replicable? A theory is a testable, usable model based on the preponderance of data. Most of the 'theories' I've seen in the humanities are more properly analyses, criticisms, manifestos, or merely speculations. Or am I just a curmudgeon?

stevbike · 06-10-2011, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac

Sontag was just an example. Not a milestone at all but it'd be hard to argue that her's isn't one of the most prominent names when people discuss photography...

When I talk about post-digital photographic theory - within my project I'm using photographs, and asking others to use photographs, to record their experience of place - so the moments and 'things' that make a specific spatio-temporal moment significant.

The question I have, and the reason for this thread, is that I think the research results will be influenced by the use of either film or digital. By using digital, participants can instantly review and delete images, in a sense modifying and updating the experience being recorded. Likewise, self-reflecting on what they've already photographed could potentially influence their interpretation of future moments.

There's quite a lot of literature that discusses self-directed photography as a research method. But in all cases, the researchers have chosen to use film...

I looked up the person you listed as your example and read a bit. Interesting. I think in the larger picture you should be looking at the material values in general. You can look at photography from any number of views. It can be looked at from the point of view of the "needed" equipment for "quality imaging. Just look at users the old film based Diana cameras. These old cameras produce cheap looking pictures but have a cult following. The way the image comes out changes the details original scene. Others only feel expensive equipment is the way go.

As for digital, the image is instant and "free" from the user side of thinking. Many are taken with little to no thought now adays. Compared to the past when film based photograghy cost money, digital has made picture taking too common an event. Every portiable device has some form of camera put on it now.

The camera itself become a sort of item to the worshopped (just look at the number of people asking "want kind of camera was used to take that picture.") when picture they see as being "good" is presented. Based on this forum, once a name is given, it can change ones point of view about the image, even if they keep to opinon to him/ her self.

An experiment about how people see the world with and without would have to be set-up. Using controlled conditions to see how people "remember" a place or scene would be the only way to get a measurement on how the use of picture taking affects the way seee and remember the world.

extravagrant · 06-10-2011, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac

Hi everyone, I had a bit of an odd questions.

I'm currently writing my Honours thesis for a Masters of Architecture degree. For the thesis I'm undertaking a series of extended hikes to explore how extreme isolation and exposure influence a person's perception, experience and memory of place, and the subsequent roll of remote architecture.

Anyway, photography is one of the key research methods I'm using, and I've hit a bit of a brick wall theory wise. The vast majority of well regarded photographic theorists and authors wrote in a pre-digital context, and as such their writing doesn't take into account the paradigm shift that digital photography, specifically the instant-review nature of digital, has caused with respect to perception and memory of place.

So, can anyone recommend scholarly texts that discuss the process of digital photography in detail? I'm basically after a post-digital version of Sontag's On Photography.

Cheers, Nick

Nick, I would email the photography-minded professors here: TECHNOCULTURE STUDIES > FACULTY/STAFF

It's the technoculutural studies department at UC Davis. If they don't have the answer, they can probably point you to someone that does.

06-09-2011, 06:17 PM	#1
nickthetasmaniac Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,361	post-digital photographic theory Hi everyone, I had a bit of an odd questions. I'm currently writing my Honours thesis for a Masters of Architecture degree. For the thesis I'm undertaking a series of extended hikes to explore how extreme isolation and exposure influence a person's perception, experience and memory of place, and the subsequent roll of remote architecture. Anyway, photography is one of the key research methods I'm using, and I've hit a bit of a brick wall theory wise. The vast majority of well regarded photographic theorists and authors wrote in a pre-digital context, and as such their writing doesn't take into account the paradigm shift that digital photography, specifically the instant-review nature of digital, has caused with respect to perception and memory of place. So, can anyone recommend scholarly texts that discuss the process of digital photography in detail? I'm basically after a post-digital version of Sontag's On Photography. Cheers, Nick

06-09-2011, 07:25 PM - 1 Like	#4
Brooke Meyer Guest	Forget Sontag, See the Obvious Using Sontag as a milestone is silly. She was anything but scholarly. You'd be way better off reading Ray Kurzweil. I've no idea what post digital photographic theory means. What is demonstrable is that the digitization of information, visual or otherwise, changes us a lot. Witness the corporate and social autism enabled by ironically named "Smartphones". We stare at screens expecting infallible answers and drive off the cliff, obedient to the GPS. It is in a sense, a surrender of self reliance, similar to what followed the Ionians. The organism, homo sapiens, changes much more slowly than Moore's Law. A disconnect and lack of understanding our real, physical world is the worry. The distraction of technological "bread and circuses" is the cultural opiate.

06-10-2011, 10:00 AM	#12
martyd14 Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Erie, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 67	Book Recommendation The Shallows What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains by Nicholas Carr I know its not centered on photographic theory per se but i think the effect is the same as what you are talking about. Poor long term memory but short term we can process lots of info. Sounds right up you alley in fact the guy had to do into isolation just to finish the book.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Modern Photography Theory	mikemike	General Talk	11	05-19-2011 01:14 PM
Modern monetary theory	jeffkrol	General Talk	41	02-09-2011 10:39 AM
Manual ISO Control for the K-x (a theory)	johnnybodybags	Video Recording and Processing	4	02-06-2010 05:55 PM
The American Rome: On the Theory of the Virtuous Empire	Gooshin	General Talk	11	11-06-2009 06:42 AM
HENRY'S Toronto Photographic & Digital Imaging Show	FotoPete	Pentax News and Rumors	5	04-22-2007 09:46 PM

06-09-2011, 06:46 PM	#2
stevbike Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Newbury, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 268	I have a book by Tom Ang Published by DK . It is called the "Digital Photographers Handbook". It has a lot of information regarding all parts of the digital photograghers world from camera types to post production. It is highly recommented by the people at Coles and Chapters for anyone needing to know more about the digital world of photography. It is simply written and easy to read. I think it show help you out.

06-09-2011, 07:07 PM	#3
nickthetasmaniac Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,361 Original Poster	Originally posted by stevbike I have a book by Tom Ang Published by DK . It is called the "Digital Photographers Handbook". It has a lot of information regarding all parts of the digital photograghers world from camera types to post production. It is highly recommented by the people at Coles and Chapters for anyone needing to know more about the digital world of photography. It is simply written and easy to read. I think it show help you out. Thanks for replying. I had a look at some online reviews and it seems to be a guide to how to go about digital photography? I'm not sure I was clear, what I'm looking for is reference material that discusses photography from a theoretical stand point. So how the act of photography influences how we perceive and interpret landscapes and moments.

06-09-2011, 07:37 PM	#5
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac Thanks for replying. I had a look at some online reviews and it seems to be a guide to how to go about digital photography? I'm not sure I was clear, what I'm looking for is reference material that discusses photography from a theoretical stand point. So how the act of photography influences how we perceive and interpret landscapes and moments. That's quite a scholarly question. I guess the precedent might be the impact of the polaroid camera which provided almost instant prints. In any case, you might check with the art department of your academic institution and see if they have any analysis of the topic. I'm not sure how you separate out digital still photography from digital video photography like Youtube sites. Best wishes,

06-09-2011, 07:49 PM	#6
nickthetasmaniac Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,361 Original Poster	Just to clarify, within the project photography is a research method, not the subject itself. What I'm researching is experience, photography is just a tool. But to understand the results I need to understand the tool... And as an interpretive tool, digital photography is very different to film photography.

06-09-2011, 08:05 PM	#7
ashurbanipal Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Lincoln, Nebraska Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 515	I'm not sure that this is quite what you're looking for, but "After Photography" by Fred Ritchin might be worth checking out. There's also a blog: After Photography What is next?

06-09-2011, 08:31 PM	#8
nickthetasmaniac Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,361 Original Poster	Originally posted by ashurbanipal I'm not sure that this is quite what you're looking for, but "After Photography" by Fred Ritchin might be worth checking out. There's also a blog: After Photography What is next? Thanks, that's a really interesting blog! I'll see if I can chase the book down, unfortunately my University library is a bit slow on photographic literature...

06-09-2011, 08:41 PM	#9
nickthetasmaniac Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,361 Original Poster	Originally posted by Brooke Meyer Using Sontag as a milestone is silly. She was anything but scholarly. You'd be way better off reading Ray Kurzweil. I've no idea what post digital photographic theory means. What is demonstrable is that the digitization of information, visual or otherwise, changes us a lot. Witness the corporate and social autism enabled by ironically named "Smartphones". We stare at screens expecting infallible answers and drive off the cliff, obedient to the GPS. It is in a sense, a surrender of self reliance, similar to what followed the Ionians. Sontag was just an example. Not a milestone at all but it'd be hard to argue that her's isn't one of the most prominent names when people discuss photography... When I talk about post-digital photographic theory - within my project I'm using photographs, and asking others to use photographs, to record their experience of place - so the moments and 'things' that make a specific spatio-temporal moment significant. The question I have, and the reason for this thread, is that I think the research results will be influenced by the use of either film or digital. By using digital, participants can instantly review and delete images, in a sense modifying and updating the experience being recorded. Likewise, self-reflecting on what they've already photographed could potentially influence their interpretation of future moments. There's quite a lot of literature that discusses self-directed photography as a research method. But in all cases, the researchers have chosen to use film...

06-10-2011, 09:10 AM	#10
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	I don't think you will find it in a published work. It's just too early for that sort of thing. Work like that may be in academic papers. If so go to school library and log on here: ProQuest Login - ProQuest

06-10-2011, 09:31 AM	#11
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Interesting topic. I'd talk to some of the psychology people about the influence of fast review on what people record and/or remember. Imagine how differently you'd type and write if your computer display were turned off! Don't forget that digital photography allows the average person much more latitude in purposefully altering the photo to change the story it tells by editing.

06-10-2011, 10:48 AM	#13
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	What reality does a post-digital photographic theory model? How can such a theory be tested? Will the tests be replicable? A theory is a testable, usable model based on the preponderance of data. Most of the 'theories' I've seen in the humanities are more properly analyses, criticisms, manifestos, or merely speculations. Or am I just a curmudgeon?

06-10-2011, 02:15 PM	#14
stevbike Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Newbury, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 268	Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac Sontag was just an example. Not a milestone at all but it'd be hard to argue that her's isn't one of the most prominent names when people discuss photography... When I talk about post-digital photographic theory - within my project I'm using photographs, and asking others to use photographs, to record their experience of place - so the moments and 'things' that make a specific spatio-temporal moment significant. The question I have, and the reason for this thread, is that I think the research results will be influenced by the use of either film or digital. By using digital, participants can instantly review and delete images, in a sense modifying and updating the experience being recorded. Likewise, self-reflecting on what they've already photographed could potentially influence their interpretation of future moments. There's quite a lot of literature that discusses self-directed photography as a research method. But in all cases, the researchers have chosen to use film... I looked up the person you listed as your example and read a bit. Interesting. I think in the larger picture you should be looking at the material values in general. You can look at photography from any number of views. It can be looked at from the point of view of the "needed" equipment for "quality imaging. Just look at users the old film based Diana cameras. These old cameras produce cheap looking pictures but have a cult following. The way the image comes out changes the details original scene. Others only feel expensive equipment is the way go. As for digital, the image is instant and "free" from the user side of thinking. Many are taken with little to no thought now adays. Compared to the past when film based photograghy cost money, digital has made picture taking too common an event. Every portiable device has some form of camera put on it now. The camera itself become a sort of item to the worshopped (just look at the number of people asking "want kind of camera was used to take that picture.") when picture they see as being "good" is presented. Based on this forum, once a name is given, it can change ones point of view about the image, even if they keep to opinon to him/ her self. An experiment about how people see the world with and without would have to be set-up. Using controlled conditions to see how people "remember" a place or scene would be the only way to get a measurement on how the use of picture taking affects the way seee and remember the world.

06-10-2011, 04:15 PM	#15
extravagrant Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 121	Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac Hi everyone, I had a bit of an odd questions. I'm currently writing my Honours thesis for a Masters of Architecture degree. For the thesis I'm undertaking a series of extended hikes to explore how extreme isolation and exposure influence a person's perception, experience and memory of place, and the subsequent roll of remote architecture. Anyway, photography is one of the key research methods I'm using, and I've hit a bit of a brick wall theory wise. The vast majority of well regarded photographic theorists and authors wrote in a pre-digital context, and as such their writing doesn't take into account the paradigm shift that digital photography, specifically the instant-review nature of digital, has caused with respect to perception and memory of place. So, can anyone recommend scholarly texts that discuss the process of digital photography in detail? I'm basically after a post-digital version of Sontag's On Photography. Cheers, Nick Nick, I would email the photography-minded professors here: TECHNOCULTURE STUDIES > FACULTY/STAFF It's the technoculutural studies department at UC Davis. If they don't have the answer, they can probably point you to someone that does.