EcoLeica
Check out my blog!!!
Hmmmm interesting thread here, especially as I have just done some research into the philosophy of color and monochrome in non-fictional films.
My personal opinion is that reality is a construct of the photographer who takes the photo, be it monochrome of color. The Film theorist Zettle suggested a 'desaturation theory'. The desaturation theory suggests that in some situations the rendering of a image in color can lead to distraction that would pervert the 'emotional' reality that the image is trying to put forward.
But as I said again the 'reality' is a construct of the photographer
My personal opinion is that reality is a construct of the photographer who takes the photo, be it monochrome of color. The Film theorist Zettle suggested a 'desaturation theory'. The desaturation theory suggests that in some situations the rendering of a image in color can lead to distraction that would pervert the 'emotional' reality that the image is trying to put forward.
But as I said again the 'reality' is a construct of the photographer
totifoto
Well-known
Well.........I´m colorblind........so B&W is more real to me 
I don't wish to comment on the truth or realness of B&W. To state my bias: I love B&W. Invoking Marshall McLuhan: To me B&W is a cool medium [like radio or print], colour photography is a hot medium, more akin to TV.
from: http://www.regent.edu/acad/schcom/rojc/mdic/mcluhan.html
McLuhan is also well known for his division of media into hot and cool categories. Hot media are low in audience participation due to their high resolution or definition. Cool media are high in audience participation due to their low definition (the receiver must fill in the missing information).
from: http://www.regent.edu/acad/schcom/rojc/mdic/mcluhan.html
McLuhan is also well known for his division of media into hot and cool categories. Hot media are low in audience participation due to their high resolution or definition. Cool media are high in audience participation due to their low definition (the receiver must fill in the missing information).
John Bragg
Well-known
I started serious photography using colour and continued happily with that medium, (mainly transparency), for at least five years. It was only when I started dabbling in monochrome that I really found true satisfaction with my photographs. Truth is that mono imagery is much more to my taste and is nearer my personal reality. Put simply I think in mono.
Sparrow
Veteran
Reality, whatever it is, must be a product of each individuals’ consciousness, the best the photographer could hope to do would be influence my perception of reality he could not possibly construct it
stefan_dinu
Established
There is no true in photography. Either BW or color. Because you cannot take photographs "inside" you. Photography is just a slice of reproduction of the common illusion we call "reality". What our brain made of it, anyways.
Color is closer to this "sensory human reality", and 3D color photography is even closer.
Color is closer to this "sensory human reality", and 3D color photography is even closer.
Sparrow
Veteran
how would one know one's reality wasn't unique?
madsolitaire
Established
What is "truth" anyway?
stefan_dinu
Established
you got it!
colker
Well-known
true can only be reached through words. that's the monotheisthic credo: no adoration of images.
Sparrow
Veteran
fretbuzzard
Newbie
Truth, is that which is not a lie
Didn't Picasso say that art is a lie that tells the truth?
Sparrow
Veteran
or was it
"We all know that art is not the truth, art is a lie that makes us understand the truth"
perhaps?
so now we just need to know if a photograph is art
"We all know that art is not the truth, art is a lie that makes us understand the truth"
perhaps?
so now we just need to know if a photograph is art
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
colker
Well-known
Didn't Picasso say that art is a lie that tells the truth?
so did NIetszche. truth needs a masquerade.
madsolitaire
Established
But is there only ONE absolute 'truth'? Or perhaps there are just aspects and facets?
Chris101
summicronia
I think that's the basis of what they call 'relativism'. It usually works like this: There is what you all believe is true, or that which I know to be true.
wyk_penguin
Well-known
A Chinese painter once drew some bamboo in red. His peers criticized him for drawing something that did not exist. He replied, "Where have you seen it grow in black and white?"
As much as I would like to assume that I live in my own world and all of you are but illusions created by my consciousness who's existence I cannot be sure of, I will assume that we all share a common reality for the following discussion.
The moment you decide to take a photo, you are consciously (subconciously at the very least) presenting a moment of the world from a perspective, your chosen perspective. Just like the past second cannot pass again, that moment that you captured is gone forever. What's worse is that no other person can share that view because no other camera can occupy the same space as yours at the same time. In that sense, every photo is unique and presents something that no one else can possibly see. So each photo is essentially unverifiable because no one can make another one that is the same to demonstrate that yours has indeed shown the world at that moment. If it is unrepeatable by its nature then as far as logic is concerned, it cannot be shown to be true. But by similar arguements it cannot be shown as false either.
The only choices left are to believe it or not to do so. There is no truth, but why does it matter?
As much as I would like to assume that I live in my own world and all of you are but illusions created by my consciousness who's existence I cannot be sure of, I will assume that we all share a common reality for the following discussion.
The moment you decide to take a photo, you are consciously (subconciously at the very least) presenting a moment of the world from a perspective, your chosen perspective. Just like the past second cannot pass again, that moment that you captured is gone forever. What's worse is that no other person can share that view because no other camera can occupy the same space as yours at the same time. In that sense, every photo is unique and presents something that no one else can possibly see. So each photo is essentially unverifiable because no one can make another one that is the same to demonstrate that yours has indeed shown the world at that moment. If it is unrepeatable by its nature then as far as logic is concerned, it cannot be shown to be true. But by similar arguements it cannot be shown as false either.
The only choices left are to believe it or not to do so. There is no truth, but why does it matter?
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
There is no such thing as truth in photography.
JTK
Established
Special truth in B&W is unlikely for someone who isn't capable of fine color printing, now that it's so easy (2009).
If one becomes a fine color printer and then works in B&W, that decision may be significant.
"Truth" is an affectation, like "art." "Significant" may be as well, but I like to use the term.
If one becomes a fine color printer and then works in B&W, that decision may be significant.
"Truth" is an affectation, like "art." "Significant" may be as well, but I like to use the term.
Last edited: