Fred Ritchin

After reading Fred Ritchin's After Photography, I think these three sections caught my interest the most.

"Reflecting the world of 0's and 1's from which it comes, the digital photograph may be also said to explicitly acknowledge time as integer, not resonant with the continuity of time as flow. As such, it can enable other temporal models, ready to incorporate a more contemporary post-Einsteinian space-time, where divisions between shutter speed and frame are less relevant and the relative position of the observer is key. Rather than a "decisive moment" selected from an advancing continuum, the digital photograph can acknowledge a more elastic sense of time, where future and past can intertwine and be as decisive as the present (the digital family portraits where parent and child are shown at the same age next to each other testify to this). Its Cartesian pixel grid may also eventually be reconceived, extended to limn the twenty-six dimensions of string theory or to explore the possibilities of parallel universes, so that as a result the two-dimensional photograph may seem rather basic."

I think this passage gives a good description of what digital photography is and how it changes our perception of time. Digital photography allows for a connection between different times. It is representing more than the moment the picture is taken. However, we also need to understand that digital photographs are a result of binary data and that we can easily manipulate with modern technology.

"There are those who have photographed the stone hitting the water and rejoiced in the camera's ability to freeze the pivotal event in a fractional second. These have been the conventional photojournalists. Then there are those who focused on the ripples that the force of the stone hitting the water produces, distrusting the event itself but seeing its significance in its impact on people and place. These are more likely to have been the photo essayists, or, more broadly stated, the documentary photographers. When Henri Cartier-Bresson was offered an exclusive ticket to attend the coronation of King George VI in 1936, for example, he would have had a scoop. But by turning it down to focus on the reactions of poor people lining the streets outside, he made some of his most memorable photographs - and did so for Ce Soir, a Communist daily. He chose the ripples, not the stone."

This passage from After Photography caught my attention because it made me wonder if I choose the ripples or the stone when I photograph. This is something I would like to keep in mind for the future when I take pictures. Also, what is the difference between photojournalists and photo essayists? I would like my pictures to tell a story, and represent more than a moment.

"Paradoxically, the subject of the photograph is often voiceless, unable to contest his or her depiction. Often the photographer barely knows the person, yet the image could be used to define the person or to represent a certain theme."

Fred Ritchin brings attention to a problem of a photograph. As a photographer, we often frame and take a picture to focus on a subject and create a theme we have in mind. But the way we form a story around a picture does not necessarily mean the people are represented correctly. It is all a one sided act. How are people able to know the truth behind these photographs?