Can the iPhone ever replace SLR?

In the past, photography was a skill; an art form. The composition within the frame, the lighting, the angles and then the skills used in developing your film was all vital in creating breath taking images. Now, with digital technology and Photoshop, it seems anyone with opposable thumbs and working eyes has the ability to take an image and make it look semi-interesting. 

The result of this ease of use is that there is less artistic thought put into the images captured and the pebble-dash affect is often used (take enough photos and some of them should come out okay in editing.) It also means that the effect of decent photographs is lessened and therefore there is less demand for the craft. Yes, special occasions like weddings will always need the professional touch but for traditional roles such as Newspapers, a journalist with a smart phone might be enough to get the image for the story.

For me, this is a disturbing thought. Imagine a war photographer unable to shine a light on corruption through lack of finances. It seems that whenever controversial images make it to press now, the go-to excuse is Photoshop. Celebrities caught with drugs – Photoshop. Prisoners of war being tortured – Photoshop. It’s almost as if the ease in which we can edit our images has undermined the validity and trust in the medium.

The flipside side is that now we are able to capture our own history constantly. Very rarely does an event happen without it being caught in a lens. The first real example of this was the terrorist attacks on September 11^th. When you think of the imagery captured, more often than not, it is through the blurred camera of a phone rather than the high res image of an SLR camera.

Then, in more recent years, footage and images caught of the Arab Spring again were caught on handheld smart phones. In fact, News agencies regularly smuggle smart phones into countries where they feel it would be too dangerous to send reporters. The result is we now have an eye, albeit less quality, in areas under media lock downs and by broadcasting these images it puts international pressure on the governments of these countries who are suddenly unable to deny maltreating their citizens. Imagine what effect such exposure to corruption could have had on Apartheid South Africa?

The fact is there will always be a compromise between accessibility and image quality but only if you define image quality by clarity of the image and not the potential to affect change in others.