| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2006 01:44:05 AM · #151 |
it's exactly the same topic as this thread has been about. Truth in photography is a lie. If it is added before shutter, or removed by composition, or omission. The vast majority of landscape photographers drive through the landfills, past the strip malls and out to the 'pristine' wilderness. Then hike away from the car parks and man-made boardwalks to find their shot. Then compose the shot to avoid the litter at their feet, or the other junk that shows the people that were there before them. Camera angle might be changed to avoid the scar of a footpath leading up the mountain and with some care and luck, the smog hanging in the air won't be noticeable from the city miles away.
Photography doesn't have to be a lie. The photographer who drives past the landfill to get a shot of a pristine landscape is still showing the truth. A photograph says nothing about what's ouside its borders, and saying nothing is very different from lying.
If you compose a shot or crop it afterwards so it doesn't include a piece of litter, what is in the image the viewer sees was all really there. If you clone out the piece of litter, you're showing a scene that did not exist. Not that it's necessarily wrong to create an image that never existed in the real world, but the fact remains that the cropped photograph is the truth and the cloned photograph is not. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 07:30:04 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by viajero:
If you compose a shot or crop it afterwards so it doesn't include a piece of litter, what is in the image the viewer sees was all really there. If you clone out the piece of litter, you're showing a scene that did not exist. Not that it's necessarily wrong to create an image that never existed in the real world, but the fact remains that the cropped photograph is the truth and the cloned photograph is not. |
Among other common lies, we have the silent lie -- the deception which one conveys by simply keeping still and concealing the truth. Many obstinate truth-mongers indulge in this dissipation, imagining that if they speak no lie, they lie not at all. - Mark Twain, from 'On the Decay of the Art of Lying.
Says it better than I ever could. Lies don't have to just be telling something that isn't the truth. A lie is a deception. Photography has a huge potential to contain bias, deception and misdirection. You can also try to tell the truth, but many people self edit that truth by the direction they point the lens.
The camera points both ways.
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 07:32:18.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 07:56:43 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Among other common lies, we have the silent lie -- the deception which one conveys by simply keeping still and concealing the truth. Many obstinate truth-mongers indulge in this dissipation, imagining that if they speak no lie, they lie not at all. - Mark Twain, from 'On the Decay of the Art of Lying.
Says it better than I ever could. Lies don't have to just be telling something that isn't the truth. A lie is a deception. Photography has a huge potential to contain bias, deception and misdirection. You can also try to tell the truth, but many people self edit that truth by the direction they point the lens.
The camera points both ways. |
Sounds like it's all a matter of personal perspective. If the camera points both ways - either way can be the truth or lie, depending on your point of view. A debate that has no definitive answer.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 09:00:11 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Sounds like it's all a matter of personal perspective. If the camera points both ways - either way can be the truth or lie, depending on your point of view. A debate that has no definitive answer. |
Yes, I'd certainly agree with that. But what then becomes clear, is that the saying 'the camera never lies' isn't always or even often true. Also, the notion that a 'pure' unedited photograph is somehow more honest, seems a bit suspect.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 09:37:54 AM · #155 |
Somehow I feel like I've stepped into a time machine and have traveled back to college days and ended up in my Logic class. :D
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 09:53:11 AM · #156 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Says it better than I ever could. |
Saying that a camera always lies is pointless - it has no practical implications.
By the same token, a human eye always lies, since it can only see this far, and perceive only a certain spectrum of light, and its signals are processed by an imperfect and selective brain. Your ears also always lie. And so does your memory. We all may as well live in a Matrix, for all we know - does this mean anything practical for us? No. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 10:34:18 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Says it better than I ever could. |
Saying that a camera always lies is pointless - it has no practical implications. |
Of course it does. You can then stop believing that what you see in a photograph isn't some kind of meaningful 'truth' or realistic representation of what you'd see if you were there.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:00:50 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Of course it does. You can then stop believing that what you see in a photograph isn't some kind of meaningful 'truth' or realistic representation of what you'd see if you were there. |
And yet we rely on our senses and reason (which are *constantly* misleading us by omission) for a meaningful representation of truth. We drive, we eat, we mate - all based on the incomplete information we are receiving. It is not practical to postulate that because of the deceiving nature of our senses we should discard all of their data as a lie. Why is photography different?
There are some universally known and accepted disclaimers about photography: what's outside the frame is not visible, dynamic range and depth of field may be limited, etc. However, it can stop at that, and the rest can (and many think *must*) be an unaltered projection of reality. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:50:53 AM · #159 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Of course it does. You can then stop believing that what you see in a photograph isn't some kind of meaningful 'truth' or realistic representation of what you'd see if you were there. |
And yet we rely on our senses and reason (which are *constantly* misleading us by omission) for a meaningful representation of truth. We drive, we eat, we mate - all based on the incomplete information we are receiving. It is not practical to postulate that because of the deceiving nature of our senses we should discard all of their data as a lie. Why is photography different?
There are some universally known and accepted disclaimers about photography: what's outside the frame is not visible, dynamic range and depth of field may be limited, etc. However, it can stop at that, and the rest can (and many think *must*) be an unaltered projection of reality. |
This reminds me of the opposite controversy: photorealism painters who actually projected photographs onto a canvas and painted them in. I think it is reasonable to want artists in a known medium to follow certain rules unless they say otherwise.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:59:14 AM · #160 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Of course it does. You can then stop believing that what you see in a photograph isn't some kind of meaningful 'truth' or realistic representation of what you'd see if you were there. |
And yet we rely on our senses and reason (which are *constantly* misleading us by omission) for a meaningful representation of truth. We drive, we eat, we mate - all based on the incomplete information we are receiving. It is not practical to postulate that because of the deceiving nature of our senses we should discard all of their data as a lie. Why is photography different?
There are some universally known and accepted disclaimers about photography: what's outside the frame is not visible, dynamic range and depth of field may be limited, etc. However, it can stop at that, and the rest can (and many think *must*) be an unaltered projection of reality. |
This reminds me of the opposite controversy: photorealism painters who actually projected photographs onto a canvas and painted them in. I think it is reasonable to want artists in a known medium to follow certain rules unless they say otherwise. |
The origin of the word "camera" comes from the Latin phrase "camera obscura" ("dark room"). References to the camera obscura have been tracked as far back as the 10th century, and its use as a drawing aid for artists is known to date back to the 15th century; Da Vinci wrote about it, for example. The discovery of the rules of perspective can be traced back to the use of the camera obscura. Imagine a portable structure, completely dark except for a "pinhole" on one wall; set it up facing a scene, hand a canvas on the wall opposite the pinhole, and trace the outlines of the projected scene.
For what that's worth :-)
R. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 12:04:06 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I think it is reasonable to want artists in a known medium to follow certain rules unless they say otherwise. |
That pretty much boggles my mind. But I suppose it gets to the crux of the issue.
Why would you want or expect any artists to follow rules ?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 12:14:40 PM · #162 |
I just wanted to post a reminder that the DPC podcast for this week interviewed Bryan Peterson about the bear photo that started this thread and the manipulation of elements in a photo to create inpact. If you're interested in hearing his comments on this photo and topic visit:
www.dpcpodcast.com |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 12:17:29 PM · #163 |
Wow, what a big debate about one cloned fish... picky, picky, picky.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 12:20:07 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Wow, what a big debate about one cloned fish... |
no kidding.
my head is spinnin.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 12:25:15 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Wow, what a big debate about one cloned fish... picky, picky, picky. |
What a simple-minded thing to say. The debate is not about the cloned fish - it is about a photographer's integrity. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 12:27:16 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I think it is reasonable to want artists in a known medium to follow certain rules unless they say otherwise. |
That pretty much boggles my mind. But I suppose it gets to the crux of the issue.
Why would you want or expect any artists to follow rules ? |
It might be better to say an artist should "use" the rules...
Duchamp entered a urinal into an art exhibition. As a viewer, you could examine the curves and slopes, look at it as an aesthetic object, but what does that have to do with Duchamp? He didn't make the urinal. The "art" was in his comment on the business of art. There is now a whole category of art called Conceptual Art. Yoko Ono makes you climb a ladder and look through a magnifying glass at the word "yes." She didn't make the ladder or the magnifying glass. If you believe that she did, then you have a completely different understanding of the work.
Artists have always had rules, and often the art is in how they interact with those rules. If an artist works within a tradition and ignores the rules of that tradition, then the artist is losing an opportunity for interaction and risking being misunderstood by an audience. When an artist purposely breaks the rules in order to fool the audience... well, where is the art in that? The most obvious example is plagiarism.
So, the debate here is, or should be, about what the rules of photography are, not about whether artists should use rules.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 12:27:42 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Wow, what a big debate about one cloned fish... picky, picky, picky. |
Well, the thread seems to have morphed into something more now; what is truth in photography? Little bit deep at times, but fun to read/discuss nonetheless IMO. :D
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 12:32:01 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Why would you want or expect any artists to follow rules ? |
Artists don't need to follow *any* rules, but they need to be honest with the public about their methods. When you go into a museum, each painting has a plaque that says "oil on canvas" or something like that. An artist is free to clone or otherwise manipulate a digital image, as long as he declares doing so.
If Bryan had a disclaimer under that image, there would have been no controversy. Some would argue that the image with cloned fish is a collage, not a photograph, but no-one would call him a liar. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 02:14:17 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by viajero:
If you compose a shot or crop it afterwards so it doesn't include a piece of litter, what is in the image the viewer sees was all really there. If you clone out the piece of litter, you're showing a scene that did not exist. Not that it's necessarily wrong to create an image that never existed in the real world, but the fact remains that the cropped photograph is the truth and the cloned photograph is not. |
Among other common lies, we have the silent lie -- the deception which one conveys by simply keeping still and concealing the truth. Many obstinate truth-mongers indulge in this dissipation, imagining that if they speak no lie, they lie not at all. - Mark Twain, from 'On the Decay of the Art of Lying.
Says it better than I ever could. Lies don't have to just be telling something that isn't the truth. A lie is a deception. Photography has a huge potential to contain bias, deception and misdirection. You can also try to tell the truth, but many people self edit that truth by the direction they point the lens.
The camera points both ways. |
A truth that's not the whole truth can indeed be misleading, but it's still the truth.
It's physically impossible to create a photograph that doesn't conceal something, unless you have a 360 degree, distortion-free fisheye with infinite dynamic range. Just because you can never create a perfectly realistic image doesn't mean there are times when you shouldn't try to get closer than others.
Of course, I have nothing against fiction, either visual or verbal. Many times fiction can convey emotion or illustrate a concept much better than anything realistic ever could. There are cases where people expect more realism, and nature photography is certainly one of those cases. |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 10:26:40 AM · #170 |
Great discussion...
Message edited by author 2006-11-09 10:30:48. |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 11:53:41 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Not sure where that got switched around though. |
Maybe it happened about the same time as "I could care less" came to mean disinterest ... |
Isn't that "I couldn't care less", or is "I could care less" used with the same meaning (maybe an Americanism)?
Message edited by author 2006-11-09 12:13:02.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 12:12:08 PM · #172 |
I find it very odd that people become concerned with the "purity" (or lack of it) in other people's work. It is their work, and their decision what tools to use to create it.
My reading of it is simply that people don't like being fooled: being impressed, then discovering that the technique used to capture an image was not as they presumed, then feeling cheated as a consequence. This might be a valid reaction if someone is lying about how the image was created, or uses it to lie. However, when the viewer has nothing more than an assumption or a personally held belief (as here) as to how the image was or should have been created, then it is a very odd thing indeed.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 12:16:15 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I find it very odd that people become concerned with the "purity" (or lack of it) in other people's work. It is their work, and their decision what tools to use to create it.
My reading of it is simply that people don't like being fooled: being impressed, then discovering that the technique used to capture an image was not as they presumed, then feeling cheated as a consequence. This might be a valid reaction if someone is lying about how the image was created, or uses it to lie. However, when the viewer has nothing more than an assumption or a personally held belief (as here) as to how the image was or should have been created, then it is a very odd thing indeed. |
No kidding :-) Myself, I'm 100% in awe of people who create an illusion so convincing I think it is real. I can't imagine being disappointed that the photographer played a trick on me...
R. |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 12:42:45 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I find it very odd that people become concerned with the "purity" (or lack of it) in other people's work. It is their work, and their decision what tools to use to create it.
My reading of it is simply that people don't like being fooled: being impressed, then discovering that the technique used to capture an image was not as they presumed, then feeling cheated as a consequence. This might be a valid reaction if someone is lying about how the image was created, or uses it to lie. However, when the viewer has nothing more than an assumption or a personally held belief (as here) as to how the image was or should have been created, then it is a very odd thing indeed. |
No kidding :-) Myself, I'm 100% in awe of people who create an illusion so convincing I think it is real. I can't imagine being disappointed that the photographer played a trick on me...
R. |
I certainly agree with the both of you. If you show me a picture that the processing you've done fools me then good on you. However, if you say, "I was so happy to capture this the way you see it", I don't see that as simply fooling me or creating an illusion.
While I'm no good at it, I truly enjoy processed work. I do believe that if the photo in question was posted on this site as one of our own and the photographers comments said, "As you can clearly see, it's not just a panning photograph of a bear feeding in a stream; I somehow managed to record an exposure that also captured the frightened salmon, whose heads you can see sticking out of the water", he/she would be called out for lying to us in the comments, not simply fooling us with the image itself.
Bear in mind that I really couldn't care less either way. Just saying how I can understand this being a bit deceitful by the comments and not the photo. I think Peterson is a fantastic photographer and I flip through his books here at least once a week. The portrait on page 107 in the sidelighting section of Understanding Exposure is one of my favorite images of all time.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 12:46:17 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No kidding :-) Myself, I'm 100% in awe of people who create an illusion so convincing I think it is real. I can't imagine being disappointed that the photographer played a trick on me... |
If a photographer creates the illusion by photographic means, I *love* it, that's the best I can hope for in a photograph.
If the illusion is created by practicing another trade (graphical design for instance) and still presented as a photograph, then I'll be a lot less impressed with the person as with a *photographer*. This is cheating. This is like using a ready-made sauce in a cooking contest where everyone else is cooking from scratch. |
|
