Elizabeth Edwards in ‘Material beings: objecthood and ethnographic photographs’ argues that the meaning of a photograph is enhanced by the form in which it is presented (67). For her, the photograph is itself an object as opposed to merely a representation of an object. However, with digitisation the object nature of the photograph is inherently changed as the experience of viewing a physical photograph cannot be replicated in viewing a digital photograph. The greatest limit of digitisation is its inability to capture this experience.
Firstly, photographs carry a sentimental value. They reproduce an image of a moment which is lost, and that in itself grants the photograph sentimental, nostalgic, and occasionally artistic value. However, this value is not only associated with the photographic image but also with the fact of its being a physical object which can be touched and held. The tactile nature of a physical photograph is one of fundamental value as it can make the beholder feel closer to the subject. What increases the sentimental value of the physical photograph is the fact that it is, quite often, the only copy. Similarly, there is an added sense of history as the physical object has become imbued with its own history through the length it has existed and what it has experienced. Markings to the frame or the print testify to this history of the object, firmly grounding it in history and in social experience (73).
When confronted with a physical photograph, one feels a sense of immediacy regarding both the subject depicted and the photographer. A connection to the photographer is forged by virtue of their having, during the development process, touched the photograph. This connection makes the photograph feel more real to the beholder in a way which is fundamentally changed through digitisation. A digital image feels more anonymous when viewed, as if anyone could have created it or looked at it, whereas a physical photograph feels a great deal more personal, as if it were limited to a privileged few even when it has been seen by many. This personal sense of interaction with a physical object is lost when the object is digitised.
Digitisation also fails to capture the physical dimensions of an image. All images, in effect, become the same size when viewed digitally, restricted by the size of the screen used and the equipment used in the digitisation process. Very large images and very small images become equivalent to each other in a way which strips them of their awe-inspiring qualities. In this way, digitised photographs lose some of the individuality of physical photographs, fundamentally changing the way in which they are experienced.
While digitisation can successfully capture and preserve the image contained in the photograph, the loss of the photograph’s physical nature naturally impacts upon the way a digitised image is perceived versus a physical image. This is, perhaps, the greatest limitation of digitisation – while it can preserve the image, it cannot capture the experience.
Bibliography
Edwards, Elizabeth. 2002. Material beings: objecthood and ethnographic photographs. Visual Studies 17, no. 1: 67-76. New York University. nyu.edu. Web. 17 Oct.2016.