Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by Karim Ghantous, Oct 18, 2019.
Have you actually seen Juliet, to know for sure what she looks like?
"Obviously": 100s of articles written analyzing the photo and quoting forensic specialists for and against. 10 years later, same. Also, Ghislaine still not found.
Juliet has many faces.
HERE'S Juliet from a 2011 film version directed by Alan Brown.
[Not unlike who would have played the role originally.]
It happens because sometimes photographs are taken for that purpose (evidence). But that does not represent the whole of photography.
Written documents are also used as evidence but that doesn't mean one can't write great works of fiction. And sometimes the best works of fiction can be mistaken for fact. I'm thinking of the "Onion".
Your purpose in taking a photo doesn't change the way cameras work. You can write anything but you can only take photos of facts. Therefore, fundamentally, pictures of facts represents the whole of photography. Maybe you're thinking of someone toiling at the margins who lies about the painted lead in his photos ("it's gold") and Mrs Winterbottom ("it's Miss Wilkins") but he's the liar not the camera and who in the whole wide world who's used a camera or been in a picture is confused by these "exceptions"?
Well, this is just plain wrong.
A fact is something that is known and/or stated. Cameras take pictures of things, not facts. Facts are not embodied.
Things have various appearances, depending on the light, the perspective, the degree or not of distortion, the sharpness, etc. The picture of the thing should not be mistaken for the thing.
More importantly, only some pictures are pictures of things. Very often, the photo is the thing, not its subject.
Thingness is a hangup. It’s certainly not what photography is limited to or all about.
my facts of the world, details of the world, subjects in the world = your things, except my facts are consistent with reality, in case by "thing" you mean something else, which of course you do, something especially profound, of course it is
Not simultaneously they don't.
Good to know coach.
Sentence 1 contradicts sentence 2, to the extent either is sensible.
I'm sure that made a pleasant sound between your ears when you wrote it.
hyelp i'm afflicted with thingness
oh no i've begun emitting photons, good bye friends, this is surely the end
A red chair is a thing. You perceive it and can take a picture of it.
“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.
Facts are consistent with reality, inasmuch as they are known. But that doesn’t mean you can take pictures of them, because you can’t. Facts are about reality. You can take a picture of something real and you can know or state a fact about about something real but you can’t take a picture of the fact.
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.
Sentence 1 does not contradict Sentence 2. Read them again until you see that. (Note the key words “some” and “often.”)
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.
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.
lol. That is to say, "lol".
ok, Kant, but here's the thing, see, it looks like its photo.
Note the key word subject, which is always present.
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.
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 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.
Read more books! Trust me, I'm not original.
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.
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
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.
It's still a poor description whether it was you, some playwright, or a plumber that came up with it.
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.
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.
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.
I dunno, Tom, this is seminal stuff.
Add them to the pile!
Take more interesting photos!
Do NOT make me King of the World!
Separate names with a comma.