Questions for Manovich reading

Due 8/25

Photo theory can be a bit dense to drill through. These questions should help guide you through the main points I'd like you to take away. Please answer questions in concise paragraph form. I will be looking for responses that demonstrate your understanding of the reading, as well as your own opinions with regard to the reading...

1. How has photography changed since you became involved with it? What has digital "revolutionized" for you?

William Mitchell and Lev Manovich have both been regarded (at one point or another) as important theorists of photo/digital. In this article, Manovich takes Mitchell to task on a number of important points. Consider their contrasting viewpoints in your answers...

2. How do analog (film) and digital technologies differ with regard to the ease and quality of photo reproduction (making copies of images)? How do you think this was important to the development of "digital culture" as we know it today? (think about all the ways you view photographs today)

3. Mitchell and Manovich debate about which technology (film versus digital) can capture more information and detail. How do their views differ? This article is rather dated; do you think these argument still hold up?

4. Mitchell argues that traditional film photography is perceived as more trustworthy in representing reality, while digital is perceived as less so. What's the basis for his argument?

5. Why does Manovich claim that this distinction is based on an over-simplification that disregards the many ways in which traditional photography was practiced and understood long before the arrival of digital technologies?

6. How does "photo-realism" as Manovich describes it, differ from how we actually see and experience real objects?

7. Manovich writes that CGI (computer-generated images) more closely resembles the reality of photographs than actual human perception, using movies from the 1990's, like Jurassic Park, as examples. If you were to agree with this (or not...), what would you conclude about more recent films like the 3-D/CGI extravaganza "Avatar." Real? Photo-Real? Hyper-Real? What does the 3-D add to the argument?