There's no specific essay I'm responding to here — it's a thought that's been building across several readings about digital photography, from Susan Sontag's On Photography to Jaron Lanier's critiques of Silicon Valley. The core observation: when the cost of a photograph dropped to zero, something essential about photography changed. Not just the economics — the meaning.
My grandfather shot on a Rolleiflex. Twelve exposures per roll. Each frame cost money — film, development, printing. This economic constraint created an aesthetic one: you composed before you shot. You waited for the moment rather than spraying and hoping. The limitation was a creative force.
I don't want to romanticize scarcity. Film photography excluded people who couldn't afford it. Digital democratized the medium in ways that matter enormously. But democratization and degradation can happen simultaneously, and I think they did.
We take more photographs than any generation in history and remember less. My phone contains 47,000 images. I've looked at maybe 200 of them more than once. The rest are digital clutter — moments I thought I was preserving but was actually discarding. The act of photographing has become a substitute for the act of seeing.
Sontag identified this in 1977: "To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed." But she couldn't have predicted how total the appropriation would become. We don't photograph to remember anymore. We photograph to prove we were there — to ourselves, to Instagram, to the void.
Before digital, curation was built into the process. You shot 36 frames, developed them, and chose the best few for your album. That selection process was itself a form of meaning-making. You decided what mattered. The album was an autobiography told in chosen moments.
Now there's no curation because there's no cost to keeping everything. And when you keep everything, nothing is special. The algorithm decides what surfaces in your "memories." Your autobiography is written by software.
John Berger's Ways of Seeing is essential context here. Berger argued that mechanical reproduction changed not just how we see art, but how we see everything. Digital photography is the logical endpoint of his argument — reproduction so frictionless that the original experience dissolves entirely.
There's also Nicholas Carr's The Shallows, which argues that the internet is reshaping our cognitive architecture. Applied to photography: the shift from film to digital isn't just a change in medium. It's a change in how we process visual experience. We've traded depth for breadth, contemplation for accumulation.
The obvious counterargument: great photographers still exist. Digital tools have enabled entire genres — street photography, documentary work in conflict zones, citizen journalism — that film economics made impossible. The iPhone camera has done more for visual democracy than any gallery ever did.
And there's something precious about the "anti-digital" stance that I want to resist. Complaining about too many photographs is like complaining about too many books. The abundance isn't the problem. The problem is that we haven't developed the cultural practices to navigate abundance with intention.
I've started a practice: once a month, I delete all but five photographs from my camera roll. The choosing is the point. It forces me to ask: what actually mattered this month? The exercise is uncomfortable every time, which is how I know it's working.
Share your reflections on this piece
Sign in to join the conversation
Sign InNo comments yet. Start the conversation.
Recommendations based on shared topics and recent reading
