Documentary photographs: Are they representations of the real?

Jamie123, hi. Ok, I'll simplify the question for you. Are all photographs just representations of reality or is there something more to them than that?

Provides you can now provide me with an answer to that particular question.

I would consider a photograph that I has just taken of a cup of tea on the table to be, if it was shot reasonably well, an accurate if partial representation of particular aspects of the thing that I see before me.

However, clearly there is more to photography and to that particular situation than that.

What interests me about 'documentary' photography is that it is not quite so obvious what it consists of. For instance, after I have taken a photograph I often discover that the camera has cpature things I did not see at the time.

As a result, I find it difficult to agree that a photograph is no more, for instance, than a photographer's reaction to a particular scene.

It is puzzles such as this that I would like to pursue further. Perhaps, you can see that you have perhaps not understood my initial inention
 
Enoyarnam said:
I would consider a photograph that I has just taken of a cup of tea on the table to be, if it was shot reasonably well, an accurate if partial representation of particular aspects of the thing that I see before me.

However, clearly there is more to photography and to that particular situation than that.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is more to photography than that. Within the constraints of the photographer's skills and the hardware's capabilities, a photograph is a two-dimensional image of reality in a specific location at a specific moment in time.

Everything else is something we bring to the photo, something the photo generates in us. That "us, and the photo, remain forever separate and distinct.

Something identical happens with books, recorded music, etc. A book is an organized collection of words. Whatever value and meaning are ascribed to the book are things that arise from ourselves.

The nature of a book, it's realness, would remain the same if no one ever read it. Nor does it change when someone reads it. Likewise, a photo's nature is not changed if no one, or millions, look at it.
 
Enoyarnam said:
Jamie123, hi. Ok, I'll simplify the question for you. Are all photographs just representations of reality or is there something more to them than that?

Provides you can now provide me with an answer to that particular question.

I would consider a photograph that I has just taken of a cup of tea on the table to be, if it was shot reasonably well, an accurate if partial representation of particular aspects of the thing that I see before me.

However, clearly there is more to photography and to that particular situation than that.

What interests me about 'documentary' photography is that it is not quite so obvious what it consists of. For instance, after I have taken a photograph I often discover that the camera has cpature things I did not see at the time.

As a result, I find it difficult to agree that a photograph is no more, for instance, than a photographer's reaction to a particular scene.

It is puzzles such as this that I would like to pursue further. Perhaps, you can see that you have perhaps not understood my initial inention
Click to expand...


You didn't really simplify your question at all but ok.

Of course it's difficult to agree that "a photograph is no more than a photographer's reaction to a particular scene". That would be silly. A photographer's reaction to a particular scene can be all sorts of things, one of which is a downward pressing motion of his index finger. Surely, a photograph is something else than a motion of a photographer's index finger.

I'm just joking, of course. But if you're really interested in the epistemological questions regarding photography and pictorial representation I suggest going to the library and picking up a book or two instead of wasting your time on photography forums.
 
Too late and still at work...

But what's "real" is just as ephemirical as a heartbeats' time. "Reality" as discussed here (sorry, haven't really (sic) read every post) is just another of the many definitions of "realism". And as an ism, it's prone to every possible interpretation, with the added load that photography was/is/will be burried with.

Not that I'm saying anything new, as we post everything part time philosophers all know all too well, butttttt... lets just give it some kick ass!
 
Enoyarnam said:
A simple question. Are documentary photographs just representations of the real, or are they something else, too?
Click to expand...

When I read the question, my thoughts immediately went back to the Movie "DARKSTAR". Bomb 20.

How can any of us answer this question whether documentary photographs are just representations of the real without first defining what is real and how we know it is real.

Let their be light. Especially if you want to take a photograph.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
When I read the question, my thoughts immediately went back to the Movie "DARKSTAR". Bomb 20.

How can any of us answer this question whether documentary photographs are just representations of the real without first defining what is real and how we know it is real.

Let their be light. Especially if you want to take a photograph.
Click to expand...

Everything I know about existentialism, I learned from that little movie. And my brother lives in Benson, Arizona. How coincidental is that?

But is it real?
 
Chris101 said:
Everything I know about existentialism, I learned from that little movie. And my brother lives in Benson, Arizona. How coincidental is that?

But is it real?
Click to expand...


Benson, Arizona, that's a coincidence! didn't they film the moon-landings there too?
 
Benson, AZ is on the moon. Side effects of the infinite improbability drive.
 
Last edited:
Morry Katz said:
Documentary photos are representations of the photographer's reaction to the scene.

Morry Katz - Lethbridge, Alberta
Click to expand...

Exactly. Photographers have to be selective to do this in the sense that they select moments in time and collate them into a body of work that may not represent a realistic average of that environment. This facet or 'angle' may be 'the point' of being there in the first place and so it is only natural that this 'element of reality' takes a prevalent place in the resultant body of work, or singular image. Entire exhibitions might amount to less than a second. Photographing large numbers of refugees that are not dying of hunger may be part of the reality, but if the piece is on the famine...

With my photographs, I try to convey 'a sense of understanding' that is derived from my subjective response to what I am photographing i.e. perception based. That's the only tether to reality any human being has, but it is still subjective and selective. distortion is also a subjective term and this comes down to a matter of conscience. Besides, reality is often stranger than fiction.... the finest bodies of documentary work simply don't need to stray far what would widely be considered 'reality.'
 
Turtle said:
Photographers have to be selective to do this in the sense that they select moments in time and collate them into a body of work that may not represent a realistic average of that environment.
Click to expand...

Most postings in this thread seem to be talking about the reactions and perceptions of photographers and people who look at photos. As I see it, those aren't germane to the issue of whether or not a photo represents reality.

A photo represents reality in much the same way as a mirror represents reality. A reflection of some thing in a mirror is not that thing. The image of some thing in a photo is not that thing.
 
Reality and representation go hand in hand, however. Documentary photography is usually about more than the literal reality of the visual matter contained within the viewfinder and so I assumed this was the point of the thread. Otherwise, surely it would have been about 'photography and reality' rather than documentary photography as a tool for recording and presenting 'the wider reality being photographed.' maybe I missed the point!?
 
Turtle said:
Documentary photography is usually about more than the literal reality of the visual matter contained within the viewfinder and so I assumed this was the point of the thread. Otherwise, surely it would have been about 'photography and reality' rather than documentary photography as a tool for recording and presenting 'the wider reality being photographed.' maybe I missed the point!?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you missed the point. I see documentary photography as one genre of reportage. All reportage, however objective and accurate, is necessarily selective, as we are when we witness something. In that sense, the reportage represents that slice of reality as seen by one person at one moment or moments in time. I think it is a fair assumption that, like a writer, a photographer wants to engender specific reactions in people, i.e., he wants to control their perceptions of his work.

A tension exists between writing a book or producing a photo exhibit that successfully generates the desired reactions and perceptions and successfully conveying the literal reality of something. Something will always be left out, and is often left out to serve the interests of the writer or the photographer who, in the end, is trying to manipulate emotions and thinking with his work.
 
How do I know that any of you actually exist, and that you all are not some Server on the Internet having a dream?

Photographs do not represent reality. Except that a Photo might be real, and might look like somehting that the photographer saw through the viewfinder when they fired the shutter release. Except for digital photographs, might be the embedded processor of the camera having a dream. But probably not. As far as representing reality, too much information is lost in the capture of a narrow spectal range of information within a narrow field of view with a perspective isolated to a single viewing point over a highly finite temporal period to represent reality.
 
Dear Brian,

You can always represent reality. The only question is how much of it you
represent. I fear we're into Cantor's Theory of Transfinite Cardinals here.

Cheers,

R.
 
A very small subset at best, and perhaps not enough to look at a single photograph and determine what is real.

Think I'll put on some Tangerine Dream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom