Has digital photography devalued the photograph?

The below quote comes from an interview with the photographer Ricky Adam about his forth coming book Destroying Everything. The Analogue V Digital argument is an ongoing one that may never be resolved satisfactorily.   

"What role does post production play?  Is there a difference between working with chemicals and working in a ‘Digital’ darkroom as far as the ‘Legitimacy’ of the final image?
So long as the image hasn’t been manipulated in any way a good photo is a good photo, regardless of what sort of camera was used to take it. You have to be a lot more resourceful when shooting film. For one you shoot fewer photos, but in doing so I think you learn a lot more about composition, lighting, etc. I often wonder how many more photos I would have if I could have shot digital when I first started out? Would I even have pursued photography? Possibly not… "

The whole interview can be found here:

http://digbmx.mpora.com/photo-ops/ricky-adam-destroying-everything/


This is my own response to the digital vs analogue debate 

Digital photography has enabled us to create an immense anthology documenting our world, and given birth to the visually dominated world we live in today , however I feel that the constant representation of who we are through photography and the disposable nature of our digital snapshot culture has destroyed authenticity and originality, leading to the decline of true spontaneous experiences, not just  devaluing the photograph but our contemporary lifestyles.

Walter Benjamin wrote “The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction” to examine revolutionary changes in the arts due to monumental advances in technology and the effects of modernity on the way we look at works of visual art. He argues that in the age of mechanical reproduction, art gradually loses its traditional and ritualistic value, causing it to lose its “aura” and “authenticity”. A painting has an aura and an original value whereas a photograph has not Now over eighty years later,I feel the digital camera has taken the place of the analogue camera, and the analogue camera has taken the place of a painting. In a sense traditional analogue photography, it could be argued, maintains the same relation between the artist and a painting in Benjamin’s era, whereas the digital photographer is as disconnected from his photographs as they do not go through the laborious physical process of creating that existed for the early pioneers of photography. However with the introduction of new forms of technology in art not just photography, I feel that Benjamin’s original concepts of “aura” and “authenticity” must be redefined.

I do feel that the digital revolution has devalued the photograph, we are constantly over saturated with photographic imagery possible due to the digital camera and other new platforms such as the internet and social media, desensitizing us to a true “authentic” experience of photography, we look at photographs, but are they really being seen?

Although I acknowledged analogue and digital possesses have their advantages as well as disadvantages , I personally feel that digital photography should be approached with the same traditional mindset, and the same careful consideration for each photograph, and the practices of photochemical methods need to be passed on to ensure that the art does not die out, as there is still a wealth of knowledge and expertise to offer to and inspire future generations.