On Digital Photography
  • dogimo
    August 28, 2009

    This appears to need two more frames. I sense Girl’s going someplace with that point!

  • Dorothy
    August 28, 2009

    I have four more pages of scribbled notes. Too, too many scribbled notes.

  • Dave
    August 28, 2009

    Can’t believe I’m about to recommend this, but have you read Roland Barthes’ “Camera Lucida”?

  • Dave
    August 28, 2009

    Although the Barthes is about the nature of physical photography. For ramblings about the digital, D.N. Rodowick has a book called “The Virtual Life of Film” where he has some strange arguments against digital imagery, how it’s all pixels where film was a capturing of light, how photographs have some sort of indexicality where the digital can be endlessly manipulated, etc.

    Sorry. Grad student moment.

  • Studium
    August 28, 2009

    Rock on, Dave, it’s still a good book.

  • Benford Cruz
    August 28, 2009

    There is more than one non-sequitur here.

  • dartigen
    August 28, 2009

    Personally, I prefer film to digital. Say what you will about resolution, but you can resize a photograph from a negative to any size and it will maintain its clarity and detail (though you may need to crop it a little). I’d love to learn to develop my own photos, but I haven’t got anywhere to use as a darkroom and I have no idea where to get the equipment.

    That being said, I have nothing against digital. Everyone loves a funny ‘shop now and then.

  • the good doctor
    August 28, 2009

    congratulations. you’ve been selected number 8 on the list of best ever webcomics. read all about it here: http://dancewithsunflowers.blogspot.com/2009/08/dinosaurs-are-notoriously-bad-at-making.html

    keep being awesome!

  • Nny
    August 28, 2009

    i have ziplock bags filled with rolls of film and disposable cameras. one is a waterproof one i found at Schlitterbahn. ive had it for 6 years. developing fim is ‘spensive

  • Sev
    August 28, 2009

    Once again, Cat and Girl shows me something I hadn’t realized I’d lost.

    Also– Schlitterbahn? New Braunfels represent!

  • idkrash
    August 28, 2009

    Pff, you people will comment anything.

  • Eric
    August 28, 2009

    To the Barthes and the Rodowick, I’dd like to add Susan Sontag’s “On Photography”. Sorry if that’s obvious, but that’s what this strip reminded me of.

    Plus, look! I’m smart too! =-)

  • Theophilus
    August 28, 2009

    This is brilliant. I love the ones where, after the first couple of panels Cat and Girl are basically just conducting two entirely independent conversations. Cat’s throwaway comment in the last panel is just the perfect combination of regret and whimsy :)

  • piile
    August 29, 2009

    you have made me chortle out loud yet again, dear lady. i tip my hat to you! <3

  • Declan
    August 29, 2009

    Oh! I’ve just finished reading every Cat and Girl! Although it’s possible I may have skipped one or two by accident. Dorothy, your a genius! I’ll be checking for more regularly!

  • j
    August 29, 2009

    how about a catandgirl travel mug. with photographs on it

  • Azundris
    August 30, 2009

    I love the “Get a print of this comic” option on this one. :)

  • John K
    August 31, 2009

    Puppies do make everything better!

  • Nate
    August 31, 2009

    Hrm. The “liberation” of the reproduction from the object just made mass reproduction practical. A lack of emphasis on any individual instance leads to a lack of focus in general – no careful comparison of photos for the album, no choice of frames, no rolls of film to limit number of shots.

    A Facebook album doesn’t enforce the necessary pruning and quality that a physical album does.

    So I guess you could say that the seperation allows photographers to skip an important step: a choice that you are welcome not to make. But to phrase it as “digital versus analog” is just silly. This strip was re-instantiated thousands of times around the world already.

    Sometimes the convenience of the seperation of content and object outweighs the perceived dilution of quality. Judging by the number of traditional photographers and the state of print comics, “sometimes” is looking like “always”.

  • EggyToast
    September 1, 2009

    The rise of digital photography and the fall of printed photos and the subsequent albums that go along with them just reinforce the idea that the majority of photos in albums in the first place were already information junk. Instead of shelves filled with stuff that’s never looked at, we have hard drives — which are much smaller. Plus, digital photographs are harder to pull out during awkward conversations.

  • Golux
    October 6, 2013

    Photographs are trapped moments in time where the lucky ones make it into an album, hopefully annotated to give them needed context. The rest languish in shoe boxes most never having been seen more than once, sometimes mixed up. Fragments of time without explanation whose meaning dies with the photographer to be trundled off to the dump by perplexed next of kin or executors who wish not to clutter up their life with storing or researching to give them meaning.

  • Kliph
    August 7, 2015

    Google search give me all of the photos I could ever want, all ready to be repurposed and given context and content. And then copyright law renders most of them useless.

Add comment