Skip to content
1981
1-2: Expanded Visualities: Photography and Emerging Technologies
  • ISSN: 2040-3682
  • E-ISSN: 2040-3690

Abstract

Photography has always been associated with the physical activity of the human body: capturing, editing and viewing photos are all activities that involve the user’s spatial interaction with the technology used. With conventional photography, one aspect of spatial relation with technology is the viewer’s ability to recognize the camera’s location in the photographic scene through visual indications, such as the relative location of objects in the frame to the camera’s point of view, combined with a basic familiarity with the functionality of conventional cameras, relating to the notions of ‘in-front’ and ‘behind’ the camera. Some instances of interactive photography, such as 360-degree imagery and three-dimensional photogrammetry, challenge the spatial connection between the photographer (represented by the camera location) and the viewer due to unique usability and innovative interactions, such as the viewer’s ability to ‘move’ freely in all directions of the three-dimensional, photographic space. The technological affordances of interactive photography create a distinct corporeal experience that challenges the traditional associations between the photographer, the viewer and the photographic imagery, evoking with the viewers the notion of technological uncanniness and, consequently, questioning some of the traditional preconceptions regarding the prime characteristics of the photographic medium.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/pop_00091_1
2024-06-28
2025-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altaratz, Doron (2023), ‘The human tripod: Computational photography, automated processes, and professional identity’, Photographies, 16:2, pp. 291311.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Altaratz, Doron and Frosh, Paul (2021), ‘Sentient photography: Image-production and the smartphone camera’, Photographies, 14:2, pp. 24364.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Belton, John (2017), ‘The uncanny nature of the cinematic image’, New Review of Film and Television Studies, 15:4, pp. 40004.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brenton, Harry, Gillies, Marco, Ballin, Daniel and Chatting, David (2005), ‘The uncanny valley: Does it exist’, in Proceedings of Conference of Human Computer Interaction, Workshop on Human Animated Character Interaction, The 19th British HCI Group Annual Conference Napier University, Edinburgh, UK, 5–9 September, Citeseer.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Friedberg, Anne (2003), ‘The virtual window’, in D. Thorburn and H. Jenkins (eds), Rethinking Media Change, The Aesthetics of Transition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 33752.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gunning, Tom (2003), ‘Re-newing old technologies: Astonishment, second nature, and the uncanny in technology from the previous turn-of-the-century’, in D. Thorburn and H. Jenkins (eds), Rethinking Media Change, The Aesthetics of Transition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 3960.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hansen, Mark B. N. (2001), ‘Seeing with the body: The digital image in postphotography’, Diacritics, 31:4, pp. 5484.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hoelzl, Ingrid and Marie, Rémi (2015), Softimage: Towards a New Theory of the Digital Image, Bristol: Intellect.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Jay, Martin (1988), ‘Scopic regimes of modernity’, in H. Foster (ed.), Vision and Visuality, Seattle, WA: Bay Press, pp. 328.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Koenitz, Hartmut, Ferri, Gabriele, Haahr, Mads, Sezen, Diğdem and Sezen, Tonguc I. (eds) (2015), Interactive Digital Narrative: History, Theory and Practice, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Michelle, Carolyn, Davis, Charles H., Hight, Craig and Hardy, Ann L. (2017), ‘The Hobbit hyperreality paradox: Polarization among audiences for a 3D high frame rate film’, Convergence, 23:3, pp. 22950.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Mori, Masahiro, MacDorman, Karl F. and Kageki, Norri (2012), ‘The uncanny valley [from the field]’, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19:2, pp. 98100.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Mulvey, Laura (2004), ‘Passing time: Reflections on cinema from a new technological age’, Screen, 45:2, pp. 14255.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Mulvey, Laura (2006), Death 24x a Second: Stillness and the Moving Image, London: Reaktion Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Peraica, Ana (2019), The Age of Total Images: Disappearance of a Subjective Viewpoint in Post-Digital Photography, Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Riva, Giuseppe (2018), ‘The neuroscience of body memory: From the self through the space to the others’, Cortex, 104, pp. 24160.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ross, Miriam (2019), ‘From the material to the virtual: The pornographic body in stereoscopic photography, 3D cinema and virtual reality’, Screen, 60:4, pp. 54866.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Rubinstein, Daniel (2018), ‘Posthuman photography’, in M. Bohr and B. Sliwinska (eds), The Evolution of the Image: Political Action and the Digital Self, London: Routledge, pp. 10012.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Scott, Ridley (1982), Blade Runner, USA: Warner Bros.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Toister, Yanai (2020), Photography from the Turin Shroud to the Turing Machine, Bristol: Intellect.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Uricchio, William (2011), ‘The algorithmic turn: Photosynth, augmented reality and the changing implications of the image’, Visual Studies, 26:1, pp. 2535.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Verhoeff, Nanna (2012), Mobile Screens: The Visual Regime of Navigation, Amsterdam: University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Zylinska, Joanna (2017), Nonhuman Photography, Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/pop_00091_1
Loading
/content/journals/10.1386/pop_00091_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test