After Photography

A few things about today’s announcement by Apple:

1. The iPad is a very flat name–it has none of the Biblical ring that the iTablet conjures, or the outer-space feeling of the iPod. A pad is something you take notes on, use for protection, or the place where you sleep (my favorite definition is “A flattened mass of anything soft, to sit or lie on”), but nothing very dynamic (there is launchpad, but iPad does not evoke it). And iPad just means you’re doing it all alone. Also, it’s not unique: the NY Times reports that “a Canadian lingerie company, Coconut Grove Pads, has the right to market iPad padded bras.”

2. The iPad does not have a camera, nor can you make phone calls–this is more of a consumer device than a production machine. While it has an auxiliary keyboard, it brings us back to word-processing without all the other complementary media that we can produce.

3. The mixed-media that the iPad will receive is what already exists–the Apple promotion says “the best way to experience the web, email & photos.” But it does not handle Flash software. And what if we want to experience or create new forms that don’t exist–Apple seems to want us to be happy with what is, and to consume it. Their ad does not say “great for new forms about to be invented!”

4. For a consumer/producer, it seems like this device is weighted on the consumption side, not the production. It allows for lots of distractions (reading a book while checking email, etc.), but not much intervention. There is a touch-screen keyboard (generally difficult to use to write longer texts) as well as an auxiliary keyboard that one can purchase, but in a sense we have backed away from the “active reader” paradigm. Now it’s back to consuming. (Maybe we’ll get some video in our books?)

So is this actually a revolutionary device, or one bringing us backwards? Maybe it’s too early to tell, and I certainly have not tried an iPad, but from reading various reports it seems like we have gone from the earlier versions of Apple, allowing us to make music, edit video, use a webcam, etc., to a platform which is good at receiving stuff. Can it be all in the apps to come?

Now it’s up to the “content makers” to move us along–and not just provide us with more of the same. While I have nothing at all against getting good movies and books on my iPad, wasn’t this supposed to be a “new media” revolution?

Yesterday’s announcement from Canon about wireless hookups with their cameras:

“The new Camera Linking function enables photographers to link up to 10 “slave” cameras wirelessly to one “master” camera and fire all eleven cameras simultaneously for multiple images from various vantage points.

“Imagine being able to capture the crowd’s reaction while shooting the play on the field, or having a camera capture the view from the stage while shooting the event from the pit; with Canon’s new easy camera linking function the way a moment is preserved may never be the same.”

Or imagine doing the same at a photo opportunity or other staged event, with one camera at the side of the event to expose all the manipulation that is going on.

Or how about covering events from which photographers have been excluded (assuming that one can hide a camera somewhere):

“The new WFT Server mode, previously called HTTP mode on legacy WFT units, allows up to three users to remotely connect to a camera via any standard Web browser for global access of images in real-time. Canon’s WFT Server mode allows for multiple connected users to download both images and video files from a camera, as well as view still images, see a remote live view of the camera’s rear LCD screen and remotely fire a camera all through the Web. The ability to initiate remote capture to a compatible personal computer while viewing the Live View display from either a computer terminal or mobile device such as a netbook, iPhone, or iPod Touch is an exciting and extremely useful feature that can be performed from within a local network or from across the globe over most web browsers. Multiple photo editors can now have instant access to a photographer’s images, or photographers can remotely control a camera and transfer images to a compatible computer from the comfort of their mobile devices.” (boldface is mine)

This could be advantageous in certain situations–such as photographing wildlife without disturbing their habitat, icebergs over time, or events from which photographers have been excluded (like a street demonstration, assuming one can hide the camera). But it also is yet another potential source of unwanted surveillance, somewhat reminiscent of 18th century theorist Jeremy Bentham’s “Panopticon,” the jailer who can see all. Not only can art directors and photo editors (those that have kept their jobs) snoop on what a photographer is seeing through the viewfinder, but he or she can actually take the picture for the photographer (who only has to set up the camera) from thousands of kilometers away. And what we used to think of as “travel” photography can be accomplished from a distant iPhone–a passport no longer necessary. It is a brave new world.

Thanks to Cate Fallon for pointing this out.

It is fitting to end a tumultuous year with the announcement of what seems like the most disquieting invention of them all–at least in the image world. Google’s Goggles is a system whereby one points the cellphone camera at buildings, books, bridges, paintings and the like, and within seconds information appears indicating what you are looking at. While early reports indicate that there are numerous errors being made (the system is still being tested), and it does not yet work with animals, plants or automobiles, still one can only be staggered by the enormity of visually identifying nearly everything on the planet. Are we lurching to the end of wonder?

“What is that?” becomes a question that no longer needs to be spoken. Those of us who tend to be allergic to captions will find much of the world–particularly those parts made by humans–all too easily labeled and categorized, without the ambiguities that kept us curious and humble. “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood” but my cellphone told me all about each one before I took the first step–where’s the risk? Goggles and Photosynth in combination will make sure that little is left to the imagination.

Of course, once Google decides to raid Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and all the rest (let’s not even talk about databases of college students, drivers, criminals, soldiers, etc.), then our cute little cellphones will also be able to identify many of our fellow humans. How many unpaid parking tickets? How much alimony owed? Inner circle of friends? Favorite ice cream? Arrest warrants? Favorite fetish? Walking in the street without scarves, sunglasses and hats would constitute a baring of the individual way beyond what occurs in any nudist colony.

Google explains it all in a cartoon (why show the real thing and upset people?). I wonder how many people will pay attention to this as anything but another “helpful” gimmick? I wonder how many photographers will find this evolution of their profession disquieting? Isn’t it time we started discussing where all this imaging technology is taking us?