Digital Darkroom

One of the more difficult aspects of becoming a photographer of our generation is dealing with the slew of new technologies being thrown our way. With the advent of digital cameras, programs such as Photoshop have drastically changed the way that photographers create the visions they had in their minds upon pressing the shutter. While this new shift in dynamics has certainly ushered in some great aspects in the world of file storage, faster editing, and creativity, they have also forced the medium to ask what exactly defines what is photography and what isn't.

Such is the topic of the newest exhibit at the Annenberg Space for Photography: Digital Darkroom. The display focuses on 17 artists who have decided that extreme Photoshop and manipulation was necessary to achieve their artistic vision. Everything from people with dogs' faces to fantastic lenticular holograms are on display for the general public and connoisseurs alike. As with all exhibits at the Annenberg, there are a couple of short films to accompany the main gallery.

The Digital Darkroom feature was a particularly difficult one for me to visit, though not for any reasons due to the Annenberg. As a beginning photographer, I have tried to shy away from mass processing my photos. While just about any professional with adjust things like color balance, fill light and other basics, processes like HDR and cloning just do not feel like photography to me. They use multiple images or tricks to change a great deal about what the camera saw at the time of the shutter's close. So, to gather a great deal of photos featuring exactly those elements seems contradictory to something I would enjoy.

Indeed, the photographs themselves were probably the least favorite of the exhibits I've had a change to see so far. The quality ranged from professional advertising photography to pieces that would easily be trumped by the forums at Something Awful. Granted, the digital nature of the prints made some of them absolutely marvelous to look at with crisp, clear tones due tot he high megapixel count used. Jean-Francois Rauzier's "Abandoned Bicycles" and "Racines" pieces come to mind as favorites due to rich colors and print quality. However, when coming to the animal-headed portraits I found the quality dipped sharply. While funny and cute, an exhibit focused on Photoshopped art could have done better or found pieces where the manipulation was not so obvious.

On the whole, though, I did find that other aspects of the gallery made it one of my favorite exhibits so far. Where the art itself was lacking, the Space found other ways to make the exhibit entertaining and engaging. Probably the most obvious would be the inclusion of 3D artwork and a 3D film in addition to their main gallery. The 3D was impressive for being shown on what was essentially a high school projector screen, though several moments o the film were blurry. They did cover how the 3D works by using toned lenses to sync each eye up with a left or right image. I especially loved the almost moving piece in the middle of the film showing historical photos that had been made in stereoscope from the early 1900s, including a fantastic shot of early Yosemite. The film even mentioned the famous Viewmaster that many, including myself, had growing up. From there, viewers can also pick up a pair of red/blue 3D glasses for the still photos near the restrooms. I recommend checking out Christopher Schneberger's slideshow of "ghost stories."

Also included are a few pieces from Chris Levine using lenticular prints. These are essentially holographic prints similar to the ones usually collected by children as promotional items. These were much higher quality than a child's plaything, and to see Queen Elizabeth staring back at you is something that really must be experienced.

What I really enjoyed about the exhibit is that it did remain neutral about what should and should not be photography. Throughout the main film, it is echoed by the artists that what they do is certainly not traditional, but that they were more focused on the end result more that trying to define what medium they were in. For most, everything was about that final image and making great artwork that just so happened to use photographic elements. A common theme, such as those found in the work of Brooke Shaden, is that of trying to recreate fantasies and elements we cannot experience in real life. For some of the artists, like Khuong Nguyen, the gallery mentions that they mostly use their work as an advertising tool, which is certainly understandable. I don't think anyone would be surprised knowing that high-end shoes are using ads that are heavily manipulated. The gallery also made sure to note the display for Jerry Uelsmann near the front, an artist who has been using traditional darkroom techniques to manipulate photos since well before the advent of Adobe, showing that this is not necessarily a new phenomenon.

Overall, I did enjoy the exhibit. I found it to be entertaining and insightful, as well as even-handed about a topic that inspires a lot of great debate. It was educational about the subject of manipulation (I had no idea that Photoshop was created from ties to George Lucas' Industrial light & Magic), and while the artwork is hit-or-miss, the artwork that works is great to see in person. Whether you are skeptical about the use of digital programs or have already embraced them, Digital Darkroom will certainly open up plenty of discussion.

The gallery will remain on display until May 28, so I would recommend going to see it while there is still plenty of time. Also, the gallery now has guided tours at 3PM Wed-Sun and additional 1PM tours during weekend.