By Deane Barker | May 7, 2004 | 2 Comments
Digital cameras are changing how Iraq war is perceived: How would this have been different if they were traditional? Would it have played out differently? Traditional photos can get lost, aren’t instantly reproducable, and have to be physically transported. Would this situation not have come to light if that were the case?
Some of the most shocking or memorable photos from the Iraq war were almost certainly taken by soldiers or government contractors — and zipped around the world with an ease that never existed in the days of film. […]
…The New Yorker confirmed the photos were shot with a digital camera, though it did not disclose the source.
While the title of the article is not entirely correct, the body certainly has merit. The perception of the war would be the same no matter what medium was used to take the shots. But the sheer number of digital cameras over here makes it very easy for shots to be taken and shared. We have seen that with my emails alone.
Everywhere you turn, you see digital cameras in someone’s hand. Even some of our recons are done with cameras in hand so that we can look over the landscape again from the safety of our base camps. They are literally everywhere.
Sure enough the perception of this war be different if we did not have digital cameras. Dutch government and military are well known for their capability to ‘lose’ important rolls of film that contain photography they’d rather not have made public (as I am referring to the Bosnian situation from a couple of years ago).