Prediction: RAW is going to eventually be a deprecated file format

Your purpose in taking a photo doesn't change the way cameras work.

 

No of course not. But one can use the way cameras work to serve a particular purpose. One purpose might be to create an illusion, - just like real flesh and blood people (or "facts" by your interesting definition) can portray works of fiction.

 

If I open the aperture on the camera, do distant trees really get blurry? No.

 

Further, their leaves don't really turn white if I'm using infrared film and a red filter. The film and the camera are deliberately emphasizing certain photons while practically ignoring others. What is happening to the facts?

 

These are just simple examples.

 

You can take a photograph of Miss Wilkins (Juliet) looking longing at Mr Jones (Romeo) and the viewer might think that Juliet or Miss Wilkens is in love with Mr. Jones or Romeo, but in reality she might hate both of them.

“The chair is red” is a fact (if the chair, in fact, is red). While you can take a picture of a red chair, you cannot take a picture of “the chair is red.” I guess you could write “the chair is red” and take a picture of that, but you’d be taking a picture of someone’s writing, not a fact. You can’t take a picture of facts.

 

lol. That is to say, "lol".

 

Yes, things have various appearances simultaneously. The same thing can appear one way to you and another way to me at the very same time.

 

ok, Kant, but here's the thing, see, it looks like its photo.

 

(Note the key words “some” and “often.”)

 

Note the key word subject, which is always present.

 

Good pictures are as often about the expression and conveyance of emotion as they are about things/objects. Good pictures are as often metaphorical as they are literal.

 

Oh, convey. Well, if you want convey emotion in a photograph, you should first aim your camera at something that conveys photons.

Tom, all these adjustments you describe are made before you take the photo. We can stipulate that everyone uses IR film, or opens up the lens, or uses a particular sensor, algorithm, whatever. Let's do that. Wow, photos look different. But they still index the world. They still correspond to it directly, through the deterministic way its photons are collected. This is what makes them trustworthy.

No one said you can't lie with photos. (I mean -- ads.) I thought we already determined that photos are bad at narrative.

Tom, all these adjustments you describe are made before you take the photo. We can stipulate that everyone uses IR film, or opens up the lens, or uses a particular sensor, algorithm, whatever. Let's do that. Wow, photos look different. But they still index the world. They still correspond to it directly, through the deterministic way its photons are collected. This is what makes them trustworthy.

 

Photos can be trustworthy or not. They can look real or not. A somewhat cheesy example from diyphotography.net, - the bokehnator

 

"index the world" is an odd way to describe photography and there are plenty of cases where the phrase is inadequate if not completely inaccurate.

 

And again, you choose to ignore that part of photography that happens after the shutter button is pressed, either in the darkroom or on a computer.

Photos can be trustworthy or not. They can look real or not. A somewhat cheesy example from diyphotography.net, - the bokehnator

 

Photos have a direct physical relationship with their subject, period. This is what makes them "trustworthy" -- physics. They are quite literally data. Exoplanetary scientists would kill to obtain information from their cameras at the granularity of your bokeh balls.

 

"index the world" is an odd way to describe photography

 

Read more books! Trust me, I'm not original.

 

there are plenty of cases where the phrase is inadequate if not completely inaccurate.

 

I hate replies like this. I would be very surprised to learn some set of words corresponded perfectly with reality, but if there are plenty of cases, then you should have no trouble identifying 1 (one) of them. That would be helpful.

 

And again, you choose to ignore that part of photography that happens after the shutter button is pressed, either in the darkroom or on a computer.

 

Yes, I am interested in and talking about photography. Not "image making". Selection, not synthesis. Presentation effects in post processing (cropping, levels, etc.) Look at my avatar. It says "Impure spirits begone!" I'm just trying to make the world a better place.

Referring to the subject line of this thread, I suspect some potential "Juliettes" look better in the raw, at least from Romeo's point of view ;)

Photos have a direct physical relationship with their subject, period. This is what makes them "trustworthy" -- physics. They are quite literally data. Exoplanetary scientists would kill to obtain information from their cameras at the granularity of your bokeh balls.

 

Sure, it's all about chemistry and physics if you insist on breaking it down to that extent. But the same is true of a painting. The image on the canvas is a rendering of what was in the artist's brain. The image may have evolved as they were painting it. It may turn out quite different from what they "imagined", but the painting didn't spring from nothing. It's neurons firing, and chemical processes occurring, - physics and chemistry. From the time the first hint of it entered their brain until the last brush stroke. Physics and chemistry.

 

And unless you have all the knowledge to work backwards from the final image to understand exactly how the photons were manipulated to produce it, a photograph isn't trustworthy. An individual photograph might be a faithful rendering of what someone's eyes and brains would see. But it might not. It might not even be close.

 

Read more books! Trust me, I'm not original.

It's still a poor description whether it was you, some playwright, or a plumber that came up with it.

 

I hate replies like this. I would be very surprised to learn some set of words corresponded perfectly with reality, but if there are plenty of cases, then you should have no trouble identifying 1 (one) of them. That would be helpful.

My bokeh balls as you call them are a perfect example. What exactly is being indexed? A few years ago I would have had no idea how to produce image like that. It does not look like anything in the world that I've seen in real life. The camera produced an image from the photons, but not in any way close to how your eyeball would. It's a construction. it's even a bit random though I'm sure it all can be explained through physics. The photographer may have tried 20 times to get an image they wanted by changing angles, exposure, etc. 20 different images of the exact same physical things.

 

Remove the heart shaped aperture, add some light, close the aperture and the image produced is entirely different. All these images are indexes of the world? Only in a very useless sense.

 

Yes, I am interested in and talking about photography. Not "image making". Selection, not synthesis. Presentation effects in post processing (cropping, levels, etc.) Look at my avatar. It says "Impure spirits begone!" I'm just trying to make the world a better place.

 

You're placing a constraint on photography that's an artificial one. It may be a necessary constraint for a journalist, but not necessarily for a photographer with more artistic goals.

Edited November 12, 2019 by tomspielman

But the same is true of a painting.

 

ok

A photo of X is reliably a representation of X regardless of the image processing algorithm ("camera"), which may produce bizarre even unrecognizable results as far you're concerned. Indexicality does not refer to how well, say, you, can visually interpret some data but rather the direct physical relationship between that data and its subject. If that direct physical relationship did not exist, we couldn't design and build the camera. Trustworthy here just means reliably truthful. The camera is objective; it cannot be dishonest. Its state is never undecided or uncertain and its output is wholly determined by antecdent causes; thus it is reliable. If you think a photo of X might be Y then maybe your training is ordinary, maybe you trusted a liar, maybe the information in the photo is not specific/sufficient for your purposes. All these things are regrettable but independent of indexicality.

 

It's still a poor description whether it was you, some playwright, or a plumber that came up with it.

 

I dunno, Tom, this is seminal stuff.

 

All these images are indexes of the world?

 

Add them to the pile!

 

Only in a very useless sense.

 

Take more interesting photos!

 

You're placing a constraint on photography that's an artificial one.

 

Do NOT make me King of the World!

Shakespeare updates can be hit or miss, but Baz Luhrmann’s splashy take on R + J from 1996 with Claire Danes and Leo DiCaprio is definitely worth catching. Luhrmann has a distinctive voice in staging and directing some of the great classics.

and of course there's West Side Story and many more.

I know this discussion is weeks old but there is something about it in particular that would pop into my brain now and then and that's the discussion of Juliet. I'm assuming Leo is referring to Juliet of "Romeo and Juliet". To be sure there are many paintings of Juliet. But she was a character written for the stage, - intended to be played by a flesh and blood actress in costume.

 

The idea that a painting could properly capture Juliet while a photograph could not doesn't make any sense given that Juliet was meant to be portrayed by a real person.

 

Yes, a camera can capture what is real, but it can also be a tool for the imagination. Just as flesh and blood actors and actresses can bring works of fiction to life.

Well one problem I have with your statement is what you mean by "properly capture". Depending, there's no valid reason I can think of that both pics and paintings can "capture" the producer's interpretation of the characters transmitted by Shakespeare in text. I like what the visual brings but this story is so ubiquitous it doesn't matter so long as the essential polarities and tensions are retained in the presentation.

I dunno, Tom, this is seminal stuff.

Therein lies a key.

 

I don’t consider the indexicality of a camera nearly as “seminal” as, say, the voice of a Moriyama who uses one. One can reduce a Moriyama photo to its supposed “subject,” perhaps a street and some cars. But to me “street” and “cars” are no more seminal to a Moriyama photo than “Haystack” is to a Monet painting or “dancer” is to a Degas. Because it’s not the idea of subject so much as the subject-as-rendered or -portrayed, and sometimes it’s not about the subject at all but about the photo epitomizing something well beyond the confines of subject, well beyond its simply pointing to this or that.

 

One can look at photos as a grouping of photons or paintings as splashes of paint and pigment. My imagination, though, allows me to see a water lily through those brushstrokes of paint. But, because I’m not in a forensic botany book, I don’t simply see “flower.” I see Monet’s flower, just as I see Moriyama’s street. When I look at art, as opposed to looking at, say, a courtroom rendering or botany book, I see something mediated by will, intent, style, symbolism, relationships, abstraction, etc., beyond whatever may be “indexed.” All those human and expressive elements are part of the “subjects” of the art painting and photograph I am looking at.

 

I do more than look. I see.

They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.

—R.D. Laing

Indexicality has its problems (especially nowadays) but engaging a photograph's content isn't one of them. Juliet and the male gaze. Capulets and capitalists. Whatever. The photograph is a document -- read it. If you're gormless, tick off 10 Ways to Make Better[*] Photographs: rule of thirds, histogram, etc.

 

 

I do more than look. I see.

 

Congratulations.

 

What I hope you understand eventually about indexicality is its (or maybe my) suggestion that the photographs broadly accepted as the most successful are the ones that attempt to subvert GBS's aphorism the least. It can be done, right? A little ("say cheese") or a lot (an elaborate movie set). Because of cinema's structure the movie R & J can succeed in a way photographs taken during its production cannot. That's not Juliet in the still. It's without doubt a teenage girl in costume, the thing itself, a simpler, flatter, more clearly visible version of Patience Wilkins born March 3, 2001: indexicality. The "best" photographs (broadly again), the ones that reproduce themselves in other photographs and vision-speak, exploit photography's terrible truthfulness. Look at this girl: ♀. Her love is thwarted. Unless you want a picture of a sad girl smiling don't tell her to say cheese.

 

Moriyama took the streets of Tokyo as he found them. His only entitlement the selection of a point of view.

 

 

[*] Nope.

Moriyama took the streets of Tokyo as he found them.

Hahaha

Don't laugh at snapshots. See them.

Don't laugh at snapshots. See them.

It’s because I see Moriyama’s photos that I’m laughing at your mischaracterization of them and what went into making them.

Too bad I read How I Take Photographs and know you're full of vacuous fluff like usual.

Moriyama took the streets of Tokyo as he found them. His only entitlement the selection of a point of view.

Yeah. Right.

 

Moriyama

And Moriyama

??? Sad to see vacuous blather abandon you like this, Fred, but I suppose I should be glad we agree.

We don’t agree. The two photos I linked to were meant to show how much more went into Moriyama’s photography than entitling himself to a perspective. You denigrate only yourself by continuing to characterize my thoughts as blather. It shows a lack of confidence in your own points that you feel they can’t stand on their own substance and need the assist of juvenile rhetorical antics. Believe me, it won’t stop me from making the points I want to make.

The two photos I linked to were meant to show how much more went into Moriyama’s photography than entitling himself to a perspective.

 

 

yeah, well, they don't, and you've wasted another opportunity to explain why moriyama isn't what he claims to be.

fortunately look inside! has extended excerpts and google has reviews, not that anything will stop you from being clueless reply guy (precious edition), that much is true.

Edited November 14, 2019 by leo_papandreou|1

Night night