Summer seems to send people into a cleaning frenzy, and I’ve been no different this year (I was fed up of the clutter and spurred to tackle it by Marie Kondo’s excellent book). This unearthed a load of old photographs I’d taken during my childhood/teenage years – most of them still in the developer’s envelope. Some were way too dark. Some had only an elbow or the flash of a leg walking past. Some of them were of flat, muddy green fields with a random blob in the centre which I must have thought was worth photographing at the time. On film, of course, you never know what you’re going to get until the roll comes back. There were a lot of crappy photos, but there were also a lot of memories in those crappy photos.
One of the great losses of the digital age is, I think, the loss of the crappy photo. Not the bad photo – that’s never going away – but the crappy photo, where everything’s not quite right. There’s such an obsession with resolution and image quality – is every hair in focus? Is that leaf in frame? Is 15MP enough, or should I move up to 20? That’s all well and good if you’re producing a piece of art, but I can’t help but feel we’ve lost something of the organic nature of documentary photography; the photos we took just because we were having a good time and wanted to remember it. Now you see people on holiday taking pictures of themselves on their phones or digital cameras. They take multiple shots, flicking through the screen to see which looks the best. A couple ask a passer-by to take their picture. After frowning at the screen, they ask someone else a moment later. The ability to flick through, delete and keep retaking photos loses something of the moment; when everything is perfect, nothing is.
I remember one photo of my dad, taken in Florida when he and my mum went there before I was born (I’m not bitter that they never took me to Florida). He was standing on some long boulevard. He’s putting too much weight on his right foot, and looks like he’s about to tip over. The picture itself is leaning to the right, as if there’s some major subsidence going on. There’s some impressive looking white building growing out of his head. It’s just about in focus.
Everything about that photo is wrong. If it had been taken on a digital camera, you’d have deleted it and taken it again, getting him to stand up, moving him out of line with the building, holding the frame straight. But there were no redos with film. My mum probably had no idea there was so much wrong with it until she got the prints back. Yet, for all that, when my dad had to go away on a business trip when I was too young to understand why he wasn’t around, that was the photo I turned to. After he died, that was the photo which was plucked from the album and ended up in a frame next to my mum’s bed. Not the professionally done wedding photos. Not the carefully posed family portraits. It was the crappy one. For all that was wrong with it, it captured something of him, something I still find evocative even today. That’s what I love about shooting film – the raw honesty of it; that, like it or not, whatever you capture on that strip of emulsion is there forever, no do-overs; and that some pictures which would end up in the trash folder can actually be records of some of our most treasured and fleeting moments. Photography is about making art, of course, but it’s also about making memories.