Erik, film, digital and truth in photography

[mfunnell]

I find it interesting to note this:

"Chances are, if you believe the light, you are going to believe that the things photographed physically existed in the world. It's this belief that gives the still photograph its power." - Henry Wessel Jr

In conjunction with this:

A photograph is no more an accurate representation of the world than a painting...

I agree with Bill's statement as it stands, but would thoroughly disagree with a slight reformulation as so:

A photograph is a no more accurate representation of the world than a painting...

...and I'm sure Bill would share my disagreement.

It is important not to elide over the differences between the two statements.

If I claimed to have met with space-travelling aliens and had a sketch of me with the green guys as "proof", I doubt I'd be taken seriously. If, however, I had a nicely clear photograph of me with the BEMs (and could hand over, say, a negative for examination) then I suspect I'd be taken more seriously.

And rightly so. (Although an actual alien-technology microchip in my arse would probably be more convincing evidence.)

...Mike

 

[Mcary]

If I claimed to have met with space-travelling aliens and had a sketch of me with the green guys as "proof", I doubt I'd be taken seriously. If, however, I had a nicely clear photograph of me with the BEMs (and could hand over, say, a negative for examination) then I suspect I'd be taken more seriously.

And rightly so. (Although an actual alien-technology microchip in my arse would probably be more convincing evidence.)

...Mike

Yup about as serious as 1950's B rate SCIF-flick. Sorry but just because something is on film doesn't make it real.

 

[mfunnell]

Yup about as serious as 1950's B rate SCIF-flick. Sorry but just because something is on film doesn't make it real.

I said nothing about "real" or "proof" - simply "taken more seriously". The implication being, since you need it pointed out, and all, that some evidence is stronger than other evidence and so needs to be taken more seriously. A sketch has no more value as evidence than a statement. A photograph has somewhat more. I even noted that an independent piece of physical evidence might have even more probative value than that.

...Mike

 

[Mcary]

I said nothing about "real" or "proof" - simply "taken more seriously". The implication being, since you need it pointed out, and all, that some evidence is stronger than other evidence and so needs to be taken more seriously. A sketch has no more value as evidence than a statement. A photograph has somewhat more. I even noted that an independent piece of physical evidence might have even more probative value than that.

...Mike

That is very true and actually that's my point the more trust "taken more seriously" one places in any source of information the easier it is to use that source of information to fool them.

 

[mfunnell]

That is very true and actually that's my point the more trust "taken more seriously" one places in any source of information the easier it is to use that source of information to fool them.

So, the stronger the evidence the less reliable it is? You have a great future as a defence attorney 😀

...Mike

 

[Mcary]

So, the stronger the evidence the less reliable it is? You have a great future as a defence attorney 😀

...Mike

So tell me; what are you going to ask Santa to bring you this year for Christmas? After all there are million of pictures “Negatives” of Santa Claus so he must be real 😀

 

[Pickett Wilson]

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. 🙂

 

[Al Kaplan]

Back in the late sixties Jerry Uelsmann's composite B&W images were all the rage, made up of a combination of usually three negatives, sometimes one or more of them appearing as a negative image amongst positive. It was all done with three enlargers and lots of burning and dodging. I visited him in Gainesville, Florida and spent some time with him in the darkroom. When I got back to Miami I practiced the techniques, got quite good at it really, but one thing was missing. Jerry "saw" the world that way. He could see various images combined into a new whole. He had the discipline to shoot loose when most of us try to fill the frame, so there was room to play with those images. I didn't "see" the world that way.

To me that really sums up the creative aspect of the film vs. digital debate. You can learn the techniques, sure, but can you put them to worhwhile use? I see a lot of images, both on line and in print, that say little beyond "Hey guys, look at this whizz bang picture I made with P-shop!" The technique has become the objective rather than just another step.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

 

[wgerrard]

In my naive way, I think it's a bit pointless to worry about a photo representing truth. A photo stands alone. Only the person who made the picture knows what the original scene looked like. Only the person who made the picture knows how the image was manipulated. The rest of us will judge the photo on its merits.

I do not feel cheated when a photo has been obviously manipulated if the clear intent of the photo was not to accurately represent the space in front of the camera. E.g., I expect news photos to be manipulated only to boost their overall quality, not to add information that wasn't there. On the other hand, I expect photos at an exhibition to have been made with a free hand at manipulation.

My own preferences are skewed toward photos that look like they faithfully represent the scene, even though they may not. Making trees pink in a color shot is perfectly valid, but folks who wish to manipulate a photo to create art need to understand how difficult creating art really is. Knowing how to make trees pink does not an artist make.

 

[bmattock]

I very seriously doubt that what I see when I look through a lens is what any of you would see if you were standing next to me, using the same camera, lens, and whatnot, nor would I see what you see.

Beyond the differences in who we are as individuals and the attitudes and understands that this individuality brings, I am color-blind and I trust most of you are not. I am literally 'seeing' the scene differently than you are.

So which of us is seeing the correct scene? And how can we possibly record it faithfully? I contend it's not possible.

There is no reality. There's no 'there' there. There are only degrees of incorrectness and no objective standard. So manipulation, whether digital or opto/chemical, merely represents a higher level of incorrectness, if that is indeed what one cares about.

 

[remegius]

There is no reality.

Philosophically dangerous ground, at least in the classical sense. The classical definition of reality is..."that which exists, whether or not I think about it."

Cheers...

Rem

 

[bmattock]

Philosophically dangerous ground, at least in the classical sense. The classical definition of reality is..."that which exists, whether or not I think about it."

Cheers...

Rem

Well played. Perhaps I should have said there is no objective reality. There is only that which has been filtered by our own perceptions, be they physical limitations such as color-vision, or mental based upon our personalities and other vagaries of the human condition.

Better?

 

[wgerrard]

At a quantum level, everything is probably a batch of quivering possibilities. But, since I do not operate at a quantum level, my definition of reality rests on my perception of the universe around me. Others may perceive the universe in marginally different fashion, but differences in perception do not affect the thing being perceived. Person A and Person B may indeed see an object differently, but the object remains the same.

If I take a photo of a tree, I suspect most people would recognize it as a tree. Each will bring different experiences and memories and emotions to that photo and, so, will react to it in different ways. But, it is the observers of the photo that are different, not the photo. It is a piece of reality, just as the tree is.

 

[remegius]

Perhaps I should have said there is no objective reality.

I'm not so sure about that, Bill. Certainly the attributes of a thing get filtered through our perceptions, but not the thing itself. The thing itself either exists or it doesn't, regardless of how we perceive it. These discussions are sometimes difficult to wrap our minds around, but I appreciate them nevertheless. We need to be able to speak as precisely as possible about what it is we experience in the world. Otherwise we are left with (as posted earlier), "Well, that's just how I feel about things." The moment someone reduces conversation to statements like that is the moment that all conversation ceases.

Cheers...

Rem

 

[NickTrop]

Not understanding why this is even a debate. Films! Ya gotchyer "documentaries", ya gotctyer Eiji Tsburaya's making "giant lizard eats Tokyo" pics in the 60's, and your experimental filmmakers, and your modern (boring) CGI-fests, and - of course, animation... One style captures reality (only they can't, really...) and the other styles exploit the obvious ability of the camera to enhance or outright lie... Cinematographers also have different philosophies... from the beautiful black and white early stuff of Conrad Hall or a Mario Bava who used dramatic lighting to enhance reality, to your modern Japanese (and American) styles who believe the image captured should match-up to how the eye views the scene as accurately as possible.

It's a matter of style, taste, and guiding philosophy - always has been, and it applies to all arts and things that "approach" art, like photography.

 

[FrankS]

We are getting so deep here. Isn't the statement in post #1 that was presented for discussion simply that it was easier to make significant alterations to an image in the digital medium than in the traditional wet darkroom medium. The key word required for comprehension of the statement are "significant" and "easier".

 

[bmattock]

I'm not so sure about that, Bill. Certainly the attributes of a thing get filtered through our perceptions, but not the thing itself. The thing itself either exists or it doesn't, regardless of how we perceive it. These discussions are sometimes difficult to wrap our minds around, but I appreciate them nevertheless. We need to be able to speak as precisely as possible about what it is we experience in the world. Otherwise we are left with (as posted earlier), "Well, that's just how I feel about things." The moment someone reduces conversation to statements like that is the moment that all conversation ceases.

This is the essence of the 'if a tree falls in the woods' discussion. Obviously things exist with or without us to perceive them, but if we do not perceive them, what is the difference between them existing and not existing? And furthermore, an object's properties are only descriptions of how we perceive them. An object's temperature is only a measurement on a yardstick invented by us. No us, no yardstick. No yardstick, no temperature? Or perhaps temperature, but meaningless and therefore not a property?

Objects may exist independent of us, but does meaning exist without us? So perhaps it is not that we filter the attributes, but that we in fact create them?

I love discussions like this.

 

[remegius]

We are getting so deep here.

And we certainly don't want to do that, do we.

Cheers...

Rem

 

[bmattock]

We are getting so deep here. Isn't the statement in post #1 that was presented for discussion simply that it was easier to make significant alterations to an image in the digital medium than in the traditional wet darkroom medium. The key word required for comprehension of the statement are "significant" and "easier".

Yeah, but that question was boring and we've moved on. And I answered it anyway - the current crop of digital photographers do not have a complete understanding of photographic history, so they do not have aught to compare their digital manipulations with. They don't know how easy it was to dodge and burn, just for one example, or to choose a different developer to obtain a different result. "Ease" is too subjective. Easy to whom?

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm not so sure about that, Bill. Certainly the attributes of a thing get filtered through our perceptions, but not the thing itself. The thing itself either exists or it doesn't, regardless of how we perceive it. These discussions are sometimes difficult to wrap our minds around, but I appreciate them nevertheless. We need to be able to speak as precisely as possible about what it is we experience in the world. Otherwise we are left with (as posted earlier), "Well, that's just how I feel about things." The moment someone reduces conversation to statements like that is the moment that all conversation ceases.

Cheers...

Rem

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.