In the following paper, I will make several observations about the significant differences between “Danguerrereotype” picture and a digital photograph.
The “Danguerrereotype” picture does not offer vivid details to the viewer, anywhere close to the level of Digital photography. These pictures are in black and white or solid colors which are in direct contrast to today’s modern digital photography which allows for the full spectrum of color. In fact, in many cases it almost seems to be a cloud and there is an aura around the subject matter of the picture. These qualities do not allow for a completely accurate representation of the person or subject matter, in the same manner that a digital photograph would. However, the same qualities which might make the picture look less representative of the subject matter also add an artistic appeal to the picture. This is especially true when viewing “Danguerreotype” pictures of people. These black and white representations of people seem to capture the soul of the person but not necessarily does the viewer feel like they are looking at the person himself. When a person views a picture of a person that is taken digitally, you can see that person’s outward appearance in plain and sometimes painstaking detail. It is the same as seeing a person in passing on the street or at a restaurant. The “Danguerreotype” picture makes the viewer feel like you are viewing something spectral…”real” but “other worldy”. That is what makes the “type” pictures appeal to me against digital photography. They almost appear haunted the viewer loses the detail of the subject matter and you see the essence.
Conversely, Digital photography is excellent for capturing subject matter that contains vivid colors and detail. I compared a picture of a flower that was done in the respective mediums. The “type” picture feels like the colors bleed and they are not very vivid. When you view the flower, it is pretty but looks more like a smudge on paper then the digital photograph. The best analogy I can make is that the “type” picture has an abstract quality to it which makes it appealing but not necessarily representative. The digital photograph of similar subject matter just pops of the page at the viewer. You can see the color and all of the details of the flower. Each petal is clearly demarcated from the next, you can see all of the different parts of the flower. This compares much more favorably to the “smudge” of the “type” picture. With a digital photograph you can also see other elements of the background very clearly. Thus, the viewer is able to really consume and relate to the subject matter presented in digital photography. The evolution of digital photography has evolved so greatly that if you put a picture of the subject matter next to the subject matter itself, the viewer would not be able to identify the real flower. This is in direct contrast to the “type” pictures that we see.
In summation, both types of representations having redeeming and interesting qualities. The “type” representations just have more of an abstract feel. The digital photography is representative of what a person actually views in real life.
