Erik, film, digital and truth in photography

[Sparrow]

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

and no contribution from you?

😀

 

[Michael Markey]

Yellow and she is wearing a reddish t shirt. But take no notice of me . I`m a figment of your imagination.

 

[wgerrard]

Chris is correct. The words we use to name or describe something do not change that thing. We have different reactions to the same wine, or see the color of a skirt differently, because we are different, not because the wine or the skirt change when a different person tastes or sees them.

It is not relevant to wonder if a photo is supposed to alter or mimic reality, or whatever. A photo is a separate, distinct, piece of reality. That's what we make when we take pictures.

 

[mfunnell]

and no contribution from you?

😀

I dunno: as near as I can tell, aside from Chris101, I'm the only nonexistent entity who has expressed, in this thread, even the vaguest view that "reality" might exist as something other than a matter of opinion.

And I'll fully cop to being what the great John Clarke once called a "naive realist". In his formulation, well, I reckon I exist - and if I don't exist then why do I have to pay tax?

By extension: if I exist and I have to pay tax then some arsehole is making me do it, so he or she probably exists. Whether I subjectively want them to or not.

As a personal experiment, you might try not paying tax - and see how far you get. 🙁

...Mike

[Note, for the record, that I believe that progressive taxation is, in fact, highly civilised and should be supported, encouraged and most of all paid.]

 

[Sparrow]

I dunno: as near as I can tell, aside from Chris101, I'm the only nonexistent entity who has expressed, in this thread, even the vaguest view that "reality" might exist as something other than a matter of opinion.

And I'll fully cop to being what the great John Clarke once called a "naive realist". In his formulation, well, I reckon I exist - and if I don't exist then why do I have to pay tax?

By extension: if I exist and I have to pay tax then some arsehole is making me do it, so he or she probably exists. Whether I subjectively want them to or not.

As a personal experiment, you might try not paying tax - and see how far you get. 🙁

...Mike

[Note, for the record, that I believe that progressive taxation is, in fact, highly civilised and should be supported, encouraged and most of all paid.]

And I’m a skeptic, I accept there must be a reality because I’m thinking and talking about it, but than I don’t make the presumption that your perception of a shared reality is the same as mine, will you allow that as a valid position?

Bill; I wasn’t calming any relevance to the photo, I was hoping to show how subtle human perception is, I fear I won’t get a large enough sample to have any meaning now

 

[mfunnell]

I don’t make the presumption that your perception of a shared reality is the same as mine, will you allow that as a valid position?

More than a valid position, that I'll simply accept as unavoidable and probably desirable.

...Mike

 

[Ezzie]

Every time I come across statements that have to do with "falsify" with respect to photographs I'm reminded of the old story that is supposedly attributed to Picasso. Apparently he was at a cubist exhibition when he overheard a matronly woman remark while gazing at a painting entitled "Fish", "That doesn't look like a fish to me." To which Picasso replied, "It isn't, madam...it's a painting." A photograph is just that, a photograph. It is not reality. How do you falsify that which is not real to begin with?

Cheers...

Rem

Very well put. I don't (yet) subscribe to the construct anything from everything approach which can now be done in the digital domain, but it doesn't mean that I have grounds to criticize those that do. If photography is to be considered an art form, then postprocessing or whatever you want to call it, is just another tool. Who but the photographer can envision the image that is to be the outcome when the camera captures the scene? If you want to be really philosphical about it, all captures are false, they cannot and will not recreate what the eyes themselves saw at that moment.