Something I have been thinking about for the past year or so is throwing myself into 4×5. I think the physicality of large format (or any analogue process for that matter) adds an extra level of authenticity in terms of making an image although, in a digital environment I never can decide whether it is worth the time. Considering (for example) that the resolution from a 4×5 scan is so large and we are on a long distance course where we are limited to uploading digital files at relatively small resolutions; I wonder whether decreasing the resolution of a digital representation of an incredibly detailed image removes that extra layer of authenticity. If (for example) a portfolio is being judged on the lower resolution digital representation of 4×5 images, how is it being judged? It is something that I’m struggling to bend my head around in thinking about adopting it into my own practice for this reason.
In my commercial practice I take a lot of portraits and that carries over into my personal work. Considering portraits in terms of authenticity and representation; even if portraits aren’t posed there is still a collaboration going on between photographer and the subject/client – as there is in any portrait scenario. The collaboration is perhaps intended to capture the most authentic or natural image however I’m not sure it’s really possible for anyone to do that in front of a camera, and every photograph ever taken is an individual perspective so I struggle to accept a photograph as a marker in authenticity. Id say that representation is more powerful in portaiture than authenticity, even if the aim is to be as authentic as possible.
Barthes makes the point throughout the book that he is not a photographer, does it matter? We are all photographers coming from a range of practices, is our opinion on what is authentic or what makes an image authentic being displaced by our emotional stake in taking the photograph?
CRJ 