Erik, film, digital and truth in photography

[250swb]

An interesting discussion, but a moot one in a few years. Whether it is in five years or 50 years, 99.99 percent of photos (excluding an extremely niche group of photographers if film survives at all) will be shot with digital cameras. Discussions of whether photographs (digital or film) are accurate representations of reality are an anachronism and sound strange coming from modern folks.

We look fondly at old movies shot in Technicolor precisely because they don't look real (sitcoms shot with with digital cameras look "real" if you want an example of why we prefer Technicolor). Yet, we argue for the "reality" of B&W Tri-X. We are strange birds, indeed. 🙂

In any conversation its possible take a word like 'reality' and literally taken make a mockery of its use. I think in this case you could take a Thesaurus and assume that a few more could be used interchangeably with it, like 'belief', like 'authenticity', like 'tangibility'. The information on a negative is more open to scrutiny as regards it authenticity, and therefore perceived reality, than any digital file. The increase of information, processing, and user parameters do not make the digital fiile more real, but rather have the potential for increasing the gap between it and reality; to much is hidden and behind the scenes.

Yes we fondly look at Technicolor movies, but they looked super real when they were new, and because that reality was at arms length from the public it ensured the Indians remained the bads guys and everybody believed Hollywood wouldn't lie to them. On the other hand holding a negative of a holiday snap was open to everybody, and this innate understanding of 35mm film (and all mass market film) was what made Robert Frank's 'The Americans' the democratic antidote to Hollywood. It was something tangible and available because yes, everybody understood the boundaries of a negative or could at least narrow down the likelihood whether something was real or manipulated.

The problem with a digital image is that no matter how much you educate people in its techniques and tricks you are no nearer being able to prove or disprove the reality of the image as having been genuinely in front of the photographer in that form. You are not able to narrow down and prove the truth of a well crafted image. The last hope is to trust the photographer to tell you if the image is true to the world, or true to the truth in his/her head.

Steve

 

[remegius]

Objects may exist independent of us, but does meaning exist without us?

Ah...the crux. And, of course, the answer to that question is...certainly not! We take, for better or worse, the measure of all things. However I for one always hope that who ever is doing the measuring will do so in an intelligent and substantive way, provide some enlightenment, and thereby avoid having to tell me about how they "feel."

Cheers...

Rem

 

[wgerrard]

In any conversation its possible take a word like 'reality' and literally taken make a mockery of its use. I think in this case you could take a Thesaurus and assume that a few more could be used interchangeably with it, like 'belief', like 'authenticity', like 'tangibility'.

I'll venture to argue that anything that smacks of human judgement -- belief, authenticity, truth, even our understanding of reality -- may or may not have anything to do with reality.

But, in terms of photography, I think debating whether or not an image reflects or distorts reality, or creates its own, is missing the point.

When a writer -- a journalist writing a news story or a novelist crafting a book -- uses words to create a story, they are seeking to convey information about events, real or imaginary, to other people. They choose and deploy -- manipulate -- language in hopes of conveying that information. They cannot know how people will process or react to that information, but they do know people will process it and react to it.

Something very similar happens with photography. We take a picture because something prompts us to wish to capture some information about a scene. We show that image to others in hopes that they will process and react to that information as we did.

Is the news story a true reflection of reality? Or the photo? Or is the novel a reflection of an imagined reality? Well,no. Events, even imagined events, occur in specific pieces of time. If nothing else, any attempt to mirror that reality will fail because we cannot duplicate time. Our representations of reality can only approach and approximate it.

But the news story and the novel and the photo are just as real as anything else. Their job is not to convey reality, but to be part of reality in their own rights. E.g., are real trees pink? No. But my photo with pink trees is just as real as any tree.

 

[bmattock]

Bill, that was an excellent statement, thanks!

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Rem,

Further uncertainty: I'm not so sure either. Is the ding an sich/noumenon merely a consensual construct? Much Buddhist thought suggests this. In which case, precision in speaking (or photographing) is no more than flying as close to the consensus as possible. May the consensus vary culturally, including with time?

Cheers,

R.

Or is it just the the aesthetic that's variable by culture and era? and the underlying perception is constant, those simple optical illusions don't seem to be dependant on culture

 

[Roger Hicks]

Or is it just the the aesthetic that's variable by culture and era? and the underlying perception is constant, those simple optical illusions don't seem to be dependant on culture

Dear Stewart,

But what is the noumenon if not a (culturally) reified reconstruction of a phenomenon?

The 'underlying perception' brings us no close to a noumenal reality. Unless I'm misunderstanding (which is entirely possible -- it's after dinner) then you're going in the wrong direction, away from the noumenon towards perception.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Stewart,

But what is the noumenon if not a (culturally) reified reconstruction of a phenomenon?

The 'underlying perception' brings us no close to a noumenal reality. Unless I'm misunderstanding (which is entirely possible -- it's after dinner) then you're going in the wrong direction, away from the noumenon towards perception.

Cheers,

R.

OK; I've had dinner now, but I'm likely to make more sense

i was musing on the difference between say something hard wired like colour vision and something learned like perspective

colour vision is an adaption we all have it in one way or another, even Bill is from almost the same gene-pool he sees in colour but has a different WB, we don't learn it and we were probably still in the trees when we were "naturally selected" to find berries more efficiently

perspective on the other hand was a trick used in Greek theatre that got out of hand, ask a three year old to draw his family and you will find he is depicted in the centre and as the tallest member; he hasn't yet learned the convention of perspective.

the former while still a perception seems more "true" than the latter in some way

take this

will anybody see the reality in this simply trick, you know as well as I that these lines are of equal length, can you make your brain see that? I cannot and I drew it!

 

[Roger Hicks]

I was musing on the difference between say something hard wired like colour vision and something learned like perspective

Dear Stewart,

But does the degree of imperfection with which we perceive anything argue for or against a noumenon? 'Reality'-as-consensus may accord different weights to different routes of perception, which I suppose is what you are saying, but it does not affect the existence or otherwise of a noumenon...

No, sorry, it's too late. I'll leave that with you, as a rough sketch, and try to do better tomorrow.

Cheers,

R.

 

[250swb]

But my photo with pink trees is just as real as any tree.

Like I implied, you can take words and play with them like a cat teasing a mouse. Your pink tree is your version of reality, and anybody seeing the print will understand that. It ain't rocket science, as they say, people know trees are not pink.

But don't you think the discussion is about the general ideas of what is reality as conveyed by a photography, and not nit picking exceptions, which is possible with nearly every statement unless we always have an additional study guide of additional words and intended meanings?

Reality in any medium is about what the artist, or journalist intends it to be, but photography has traditionally had another responsibility that is present when pink trees are not present. And that is with the absence of pink trees (or whatever comes to mind from an individuals reality) people have come to assume a common socially reality that is present in a photograph. If they see a photo of a dying Marine, then they assume it is a dying Marine, that is reality. The subtext on top of that is what the photo is being used for, its propaganda value, and the response to that will vary from social group to social group. But they share the common reality.

Steve

 

[bmattock]

Reality in any medium is about what the artist, or journalist intends it to be, but photography has traditionally had another responsibility that is present when pink trees are not present. And that is with the absence of pink trees (or whatever comes to mind from an individuals reality) people have come to assume a common socially reality that is present in a photograph. If they see a photo of a dying marine, then they assume it is a dying marine, that is reality. The subtext on top of that is what the photo is being used for, its propaganda value, and the response to that will vary from social group to social group. But they share the common reality.

As I have pointed out, the history of photography leads one to believe that photographs are anything but accurate representations of reality. You begin with an assumption that I do not agree with, so I do not agree with your conclusion.

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Stewart,

But does the degree of imperfection with which we perceive anything argue for or against a noumenon? 'Reality'-as-consensus may accord different weights to different routes of perception, which I suppose is what you are saying, but it does not affect the existence or otherwise of a noumenon...

No, sorry, it's too late. I'll leave that with you, as a rough sketch, and try to do better tomorrow.

Cheers,

R.

I'll admit to living in a personal world, I've read little philosophy, and understood less than I've read; therefore I must live in a subjective universe.

I tend to tie my raft of reality to those rocks of perception that i share with others, I shall sleep on it

PS I don't understand, understand in the Greek seance, i just translate to "I think in mean" and can't get beyond that

 

[estudleon]

Till I know, both (digital and film) let us play with the idea of creative way.

But this not to apply to all the scopes. Almost nobody likes that in one periodistic notice, the image was modified and some persons, cars, arms were added.

If we see an image that show a presidents or public persons in situations that never been ocurr, perhaps we agree saying : "not good".

We need that determinated "real" acts are thus and thus they stay. There is a social, political and historical security in it.

But the rest, it's only a space of creation. With both systems (digital and film). Not to
to compress the creator but to give more freedom him of means.

 

[remegius]

...therefore I must live in a subjective universe.

I hope you're not serious about that. It's a bit troubling when we throw around words like "objective" and "subjective" without really understanding what they mean. The reason there are dictionaries is because words have meanings. They don't mean what you want them to mean, and they don't mean what I want them to mean...they mean what they mean. To that end let us consider the words "objective" and "subjective." We call something objective when it is the same for me, for you, and for anyone else. We call something subjective when it differs from one individual to another and when it is exclusively the possession of one individual and of no one else. If you and I sit down at a table with a bottle of wine and glasses we will (unless one of us is crazy) perceive the same objects in front of us. We may perceive the attributes of those objects differently (like Bill, who is color blind) but that's neither here nor there. The objects themselves are part of a public experience. On the other hand the buzz or heartburn I get from the wine is not. That experience is subjective. I dare say you do not live in a subjective universe.

Cheers...

Rem

 

[wgerrard]

Your pink tree is your version of reality...

Reality in any medium is about what the artist, or journalist intends it to be, but photography has traditionally had another responsibility that is present when pink trees are not present.... If they see a photo of a dying Marine, then they assume it is a dying Marine, that is reality. The subtext on top of that is what the photo is being used for, its propaganda value, and the response to that will vary from social group to social group. But they share the common reality.

Steve

I said that a photograph that was manipulated to depict a pink tree is just as real as anything else, not that pink trees exist.

I do not assume that "reality" is what the artist or journalist intends it to be. Or that a photographer has some other, additional, responsibility. All use the tools at their disposal to create things that attempt to convey information about the reality they saw. Those "things" are also a part of our real existence. No one would mistake a photo, or a story, for the actual thing it portrayed. Reality is out there, regardless of our flawed abilities to perceive and understand it. It is simply facetious and incorrect to argue that each person's differing perception of reality must mean that there are as many realities as perceivers of reality.

BTW, sometimes a photo of a dying Marine is just a photo of a dying Marine. Producing an emotional response is not, alone, a mark of propaganda.

 

[Chris101]

... If you and I sit down at a table with a bottle of wine and glasses we will (unless one of us is crazy) perceive the same objects in front of us. ...

Oh no. You are going to look at the wine, and say that it's a bit purple, I will claim it to be cherry red. You will lift the glass and remark that it is heavy crystal, I will think that it's feather light, you will say that the wine is delicous with plum and floral overtones, I'll say it tastes like petrol.

Almost nothing about human perception is truly objective. Measure something with a machine, assign a number to the measurement. Now if someone else uses their machine to get the same number, the measurement is objective. Otherwise, it's a matter of (subjective) opinion.

Then I might be crazy.

 

[Sparrow]

I hope you're not serious about that. It's a bit troubling when we throw around words like "objective" and "subjective" without really understanding what they mean. The reason there are dictionaries is because words have meanings. They don't mean what you want them to mean, and they don't mean what I want them to mean...they mean what they mean. To that end let us consider the words "objective" and "subjective." We call something objective when it is the same for me, for you, and for anyone else. We call something subjective when it differs from one individual to another and when it is exclusively the possession of one individual and of no one else. If you and I sit down at a table with a bottle of wine and glasses we will (unless one of us is crazy) perceive the same objects in front of us. We may perceive the attributes of those objects differently (like Bill, who is color blind) but that's neither here nor there. The objects themselves are part of a public experience. On the other hand the buzz or heartburn I get from the wine is not. That experience is subjective. I dare say you do not live in a subjective universe.

Cheers...

Rem

Well, yes, I would love to hold a Rationalist view of the world, and yes sitting down to with you for that wine would come very close to our shared reality. However, if I then start looking closer it slips from an almost objective reality to weirdly subjective one very quickly, just consider the range of views possible on the taste of the wine, my wife is a bit of a wine-buff and will taste things in that wine that I cannot, what is real then?. So while I have to be Rational enough to agree the existence of the wine in the first place it’s detail very quickly becomes subjective

A little perception experiment (open to everybody); In reality what colour is the bag the woman in the centre is holding?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3484/3740107254_28f34935d2.jpg

 

[Trius]

Isn't the real question simply one of intent?

 

[Sparrow]

Isn't the real question simply one of intent?

well yes, probably, but that’s deliberately off

humour me it’s not a trick question, what colour do you see?

 

[Michael Markey]

It looks yellow to me.

 

[mfunnell]

In reality what colour is the bag the woman in the centre is holding?

What reality? What woman? What bag?

Given the (apparently accepted) tone of solipsism that pervades this thread, I thought we'd all agreed that there's no reality, no woman, no bag, certainly no colour, no lens, no camera and, not to put too fine a point on it: no "us".

...Mike