Photographic Registers Are Latent Images

Abstract

Anyone familiar with using a film camera will know how easy it is to talk of having taken a roll of photographs and the anticipation involved in waiting to have them developed. In a recent article, Dawn M. Wilson (2021) has argued that the idea that photographic images exist before development is irredeemably confused. Wilson’s aim is to show that single-stage accounts of photography are untenable. According to the single-stage account: Wilson argues against the single-stage account by arguing against latent photographic images. Concomitantly, she argues that the only viable account of photography is multi-stage: The key point of difference is that the multi-stage account does not postulate the existence of a photographic image of any kind prior to the information registered from the photographic event being processed. As natural as it is to speak of “undeveloped photographs,” according to Wilson this is a contradiction. In this discussion piece, I defend the single-stage account by arguing that Wilson’s rejection of latent photographic images is premised on an implausible view of what a latent photographic image is. Given a reasonable interpretation, the latent images described in the single-stage account just are the photographic registers described in the multi-stage account.