The use of photographs as research data is becoming of increasing interest to historians of Africa. The School of Oriental and African Studies' Workshop on “Photographs as sources for African history” is only the most recent example of this emerging concern. This paper is designed to discuss some of the conceptual problems one might meet when attempting to understand photographs as data. It also discusses making photographs as a systematic part of field research. Lastly, it provides a brief primer on the type of photographic equipment best suited for fieldwork.

Historians of Africa are used to thinking of themselves as dwelling at the very cutting edge of methodological and theoretical innovation, but in the use of visual data we lag behind our colleagues in ethnology, anthropology, and sociology. Fieldwork historians, virtually all of whom take photographs, have rarely accepted photography as an integral part of their field research data. Nor has readily available visual data been widely used by historians: compare the extensive historical use of conventional anthropological data with the almost total neglect of visual anthropology.

Although the eye is our most important information-gathering sense, we find it surprisingly difficult to agree about the meaning of images. Ironically, one of the attractions of the photograph, its apparent accessibility (and implied objectivity), dissolves into subjectivity when closely ‘read.’ Since we cannot readily agree about photography's meaning and content we tend to discard or marginalize its use as data. Obviously I am overstating the case somewhat. We have of course learned to ‘read’ photographs; this is the reason we can recognize a tree as a tree. But compared to the way we have learned to read text, we read images in haphazard and non-systematic ways. Outside art history and cinema courses, image reading is rarely taught systematically.