I’ve not been out making any new pictures lately, but instead looking at a lot of the old ones that have been collecting digital dust on my hard drive. Looking for connections in subjects… etc. So I came across these digital pinholes from a earlier this spring in April. For some reason this one has caught my eye.

The digital pinhole is a direct lensless image – a direct capture on the old CMOS censor – and I know the whole digital thing makes the hard core photogs laugh – i.e… you don’t really know what or how to take a “real” picture… and I say “so what” to that. After all, what is a “real picture” anyway? Yes, there’s a different sort of technical skill and ability that is required to make film pictures… and the quality of film (detail, color, grain) is all about what can be simulated and the choices you might make along the way in developing a negative – film or digital – so to me the argument is overrated.

I say so what to how you actually make a picture – it’s that end result that must be out there. It’s the image in your mind’s eye – if you can get there – through film or digital that matters to me. But still I wonder, is the way you make a picture (the method) what is of value? Or is it the picture?

I talked to a local startup gallerist the other day about photography – what he looks for in reviewing work… and he pretty much summed it up… “…is it big and does it look cool? That’s what sells….” Pretty much tells me that there is a lot of image noise out there and photogs need to be “big and bold” in order to catch attention and hold anything more than a glance – well maybe – I know you can’t base a lot on these sorts of conversations, but there is a “gut check” reality to it.

It’s the “of whom (or what) by whom” relationship in other words I suppose that makes a difference.