Technology and temporal slippage

<p>Please forgive me - my first post and I'm not read in the Philosophy of Photography. I'm sure this has been written about before extensively, and if anyone could point me in the direction of an accepted primer on the subject I would be very grateful...</p>

<p>Anyway - the premise and preamble to my question:-<br>

It strikes me that the new technology offered by video capture in cameras, and the increasing ability to 'rip stills' from a sequence would have had a certain resonance with Cartier Bresson and his so-called 'decisive moment.' (I say 'new technology' loosely - it is not new, but there has been a quality shift which could result in a shift in practice - the way we capture our moments in the future). <br>

On the one hand it offers a means of accentuating the notion that there was a "moment" of superior significance. In other words, there could be a consensus that a still from a given sequence was "the one." On the other hand it could equally emphasize the very arbitrary nature of this process - why not the still before, and why not the still after?<br>

Of course the significance to the photographer and the significance to the subsequent observer of the image might be totally different. Upon observing an isolated image we are mentally free to invent the time course approaching and receding from the image. To go even further, we could also invert the time course - laws of thermodynamics and entropy notwithstanding.<br>

The notion of 'signifier' and 'signified' in linguistic philosophy were famously deconstructed by Derrida who felt there to be a slippage between the two. Again, I'm sure this notion of deconstruction has long been exported to the photographic image, which becomes the 'sign' in this analogy. To go further - if there is any notion of special meaning or 'decisiveness' to a 'moment,' can it exist outside of time and causality? And yet it is clear that there can be a slippage between one moment and the next - where does one begin and another end? We cannot say with any precision. And when time can so easily be reversed in a sequence of stills, causality is similarly eroded.</p>

<p>My question:-<br>

(Apologies for the long intro!)<br>

Do you think the new technology will have any impact on the philosophy of "the moment" and if so, how and why......</p>

<p> </p>

<p> The Decisive Moment, in the HCB sense, more or less burned itself out and is nowadays a quaint, traditional idea, still practiced by many street photographers. It was superseded theoretically, and there was no need of new technology. This happened in the 60s.</p>

<p>The ideas are there already, awaiting the technology. It will enable many, like Steve, to actualize their vision in new ways, and others who aren't very competent (or indecisive) to get into the decisive moment. On the other hand, editing, never a long suit for most photographers, will become positively hellish.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>editing, never a long suit for most photographers, will become positively hellish</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And this is why I insist on taking photos one at a time. . .even with my sports photography. . .I just don't have the time or the desire (with my carpal tunnel and all) to comb through thousands of digital photos searching for the "decisive moment" IMHO, if there were such a moment, it should take place in the process of image capture, not during image editing.</p>

<p>I think we have already begun considering the influence of "the virtual" on us. Perhaps the next sound bite someone will come up with is "the virtual moment." I think I probably see "the decisive moment" referenced, shot, and discussed most in the Street forum. My problem with it is, it seems somewhat exclusive, and by that I mean it often seems to be all that matters to street photographers. So much street work has become a cliché and pretty much repeated variations on the same thing. Content, story, connection, emotional reaching, texture, voice, empathy, and many other things can go into making a compelling photograph/picture. I think significant decisive moments are an important adjunct to expressiveness or portrayal and "the decisive moment" is not the goal in and of itself. If a technology is chosen to further the full purposes and vision of the photographer, and he hones his skill, knows his craft, and can express himself, it will stand him in good stead. If he is myopic in his vision, it may get in his way.</p>

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>The camera's (video or still) presentation of a "moment" is only tenuously related to the conception of moments that happens in ones mind. Philosophy should probably have to do with the latter, but I'm not sure which you are asking about. (I expect you've already dialed Bergson and Deleuze.)</p>

<p> Fred's broad and complex understanding of the nature of "a photograph" is far more subtle and profound than that of mere philosophers. He has not reduced the photograph to a captured instant or "sign." His work seems to me to raise questions, perhaps tell stories, and for me it is unavoidably conjoined with his writing. That latter thought may apply to everybody who posts words here :-)</p>

<p>For some the captured moment does remain important, even sufficient. But I think they are not representatives of photography in its fullness.</p>

<p>I'm personally not very interested in "street," perhaps because it's so "non-intentional." However, despite my usual lack of interest, I regularly see startling, wonderful examples...just received a print from an image made with a then-new Nikon F, early 60s'. Compelling. Seemed new. Was street. Did "capture a moment." But more importantly, it raised questions about what was transpiring and what happened next. In temporal terms, it was much more than that moment...</p>

 

<p>Steve,<br>

Wonderful stuff. Stow the apologies ... it's good to hear you.<br>

My own feeling is that the ability to rip a single frame from video (I'd suggest that even the quality is not new; but universal economic accessibility is, so your point is unaffected) will encourage <em>a broader range of</em> philosophies of the moment , rather than impacting directly on the one which has dominated.<br>

I suppose that, for one who holds to the decisive moment, the signifier/signified linkage here is between the photograph and the decisive moment as perceived by the photographer. Most signs have much less slippage internally (within the individual psyche) than they do externally (between author/speaker/depicter and reader/hearer/viewer) ... so it is with the photograph as image of decisive moment.<br>

I personally am one of those who holds <em>internally</em> to the idea of the decisive moment ... every one of my photographs is, to me, a record of a decisive moment in my own mind/body. But I also recognise that any power which my photographs may (or may not) have for others can never be on that basis ... they may tie to a (different) decisive moment in the mind of the viewer, or to something else entirely, but <em>never</em> to that which I imagine. I am also one who feels no urge (after thoroughly trying it) to make any use of video frames; but I am intensely interested in the use made of them by many other workers.<br>

I respectfully differ from Luis G: what was superceded theoretically, and burned out, was not the decisive moment itself but the idea that it could be externally imposed. Internally, it is an integral part of many (but not by any means all or even most) world views; externally it is meaningless.<br>

My internal decisive moments are tomographic slices through my internal video, of course ... wholly imaginary and illusory in fact, yet preternaturally real psychologically.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do you think the new technology will have any impact on the philosophy of "the moment" and if so, how and why......</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To directly answer this question, because it's fairly simple, the answer is "yes." New technology has almost always impacted the "moment" of capture, from the transition to film, to 35mm, to autoexposure and autofocus, to digital capture and to video. All of these impact it and it's not very philosophical, it's more like scientific.</p>

<p>With regard to the decisive moment, there is an alternative viewpoint that "every moment is a decisive moment" (can't remember who said that) and that's it up to to the photographer to make it appear that way. In other words, through shooting, editing and post-processing, every moment is that moment in time that makes an interesting photograph. If it were merely spotting "decisive moments," there would be a lot more great photographers.<br>

<br />Regarding frame grab from video, there's an assumption here that it's shot in a way that works for the frame as a still, and that is a developing skill at this point in time. However, it requires a good understanding of technique and translation to the still frame, as still shooting always has, and there are some things that don't translate easily. I <a href="http://spirer.com/saintsmar2010/">shot a band</a> last night and dragged the shutter for most shots to get a very specific look. I have no idea how you do that same look with video - I suspect that there are some shooting techniques and some post-processing to get a frame grab to look more or less like that, but maybe there isn't. So there probably remain some things that can't be done through the frame grab from video, but eventually that may not be the case.</p>

<p>

<p >"Do you think the new technology will have any impact on the philosophy of "the moment" and if so, how and why......"</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Speaking as a photographer who takes photographs on the street, along with many other places, I would find ploughing through a video to find an interesting worthwhile photo immeasurably boring. To my mind it would take the enjoyment and fun away from the capture to a mindless computer exercise. I also strongly believe that if I cannot see the photo while I’m on the street, I doubt I would see it looking through a video sequence. It’s all about the seeing not the methodology employed which seems to confuse a lot of folk. An all singing dancing bells and whistles cam, video device, or the personal use of an old masters cam will not help either. However, studying fine photography, philosophy, and creating your own seeing vision will have a far greater and more fulfilling effect that any device or methodology. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >That’s how I… see things. </p>

 

</p>

 

<p>Thank you to everyone for your insights, views and corrections. <br>

I'm particularly happy that there has been a wide range of views - some seeing moment exclusively in a scientific sense (the second, after all is a base SI unit). Others viewing moment in the context of a philosophy of mind. While others viewing it in a psychological sense (which I kind of see as a half way house between the two.... even if it isn't!)<br>

Clearly consciousness is central to the whole issue. (My own views have been heavily influenced by Semir Zeki, a visual neurobiologist and one of the few scientists to forge links between science, consciousness and art).<br>

The idea of "moment" can be packaged in so many ways. My own feeling is that while photography involves releasing a shutter, the notion of moment is important. But I have to hold on tightly to this idea before it slips away: it can be deconstructed in every sense - as a word, as a scientific concept (yes - time and length vary depending on the speed we are travelling at), and perhaps most supremely, as a construct of mind, for that may be all that it is......?<br>

To personalise it further - I ask myself whether the new technology will influence my own constructs of time and moment as they exist in my mind. This has to be a resounding yes. For me, meaning isn't static and fixed, but dynamic and in continual flux. Using the new technology, I hope, will encourage me to play with the idea further.<br>

I am a bit obsessed with time.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you think the new technology will have any impact on the philosophy of "the moment" and if so, how and why......</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Time is the measure of motion and change, editing stills out of video - and searching for that " decisive moment" - would be tuning in to time / change after the capture of it, indirectly. Making stills with a camera in search for that <em>decisive moment</em> is the direct experience of time, <em>in time</em>. Or differently put, is the direct experience of change within that change. In this regard the captured still photograph with a still camera is arguably more connected to the experience of that change / decisive moment itself, rather than being the recognition of it only afterwards in a more indirect manner. But for the one seeing the end result only as viewer, there's probably no difference to be found at all.</p>

<p>Phylo makes a really good point. Very true. It reminds me of a parallel with what I do -- which is to build pictures out of composite parts.</p>

<p>Many people say to me that I must have the best of both worlds (painting and photography). That I have the ready-made quickness of photography with the do-anything-you want flexibility of painting. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. I have the worst of both worlds. I am faced with the terror of the blank white starting space and my photographic parts have to be accommodated; they are rigid, fixed, in color, tone, angle, attitude and so forth.</p>

<p>Just so must it be for the person trying to pick photos from video. They are stuck with what they've got. They can't move or turn or zoom or in any way be "in" the scene in order to find the picture -- which is done as much with the body as the eyes.</p>

<p>Another derivative of what Phylo has said is that a photograph is not time. It's a record of the configuration of light hitting a light-sensitive receiver.</p>

<p>Yes. Well put. And perhaps my obsession with time and decisive moments has caused me to neglect time's eternal bedfellow - space. Perhaps a photograph is a way of having time 'dealt with' so we can more fully explore an essentially spatial record?<br>

And yet, I still find it hard to divorce myself from the notion of time whenever I observe a photograph. It just feels so 'implied' to me....</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"a photograph is not time. It's a record of the configuration of light hitting a light-sensitive receiver."</em></p>

<p>Julie, what does that actually mean?</p>

<p>Doesn't the use of the word "record" (as noun or verb) itself imply, and require, the context of time? (Isn't the act of "recording" anything, the act of "lifting it out of" time's flow?)<em> </em></p>

<p><em>"a photo.net thread is not thought. It's a record of the sequence of fingers hitting touch-sensitive keyboards."</em></p>

<p>How is this second statement any less significant or valid than the first? <em><br /></em></p>

<p >Hmm, cannot help thinking it is just about looking for a magic silver crutch which will take you to that place that cannot be conceived of in the first place. I’ve yet to see superior photographs and greater vision then when photographers were using the most basic of tools. I suppose the technology helps in someway but in others…look at the vast majority of gear posts on PN….becomes a liability and an end in itself. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Just what is the decisive moment other than words strung together? Most photos are about many moments any of which could be claimed as the decisive one.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >A continual search for the rubber techno sucking dummy seems sort of sad. Perhaps the full auto machine gun approach and searching among the dead bodies for something still twitching will work for some. Just wonder where composition and such trivialities will fit in when the photographer is so busy blazing away with both barrels. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Hey, whatever rocks your boat and you think will take you to that magic place. </p>

 

<p>The 'Decisive Moment' idea was a product of the development of 35mm miniature film cameras such as the Leica in the 1930's. Cartier-Bresson used a Leica I (direct vision viewfinder - no rangefinder) for his street photography - a mixture of embracing the aspects of technolgy he liked (the new handiness of the camera) while rejecting the technology he found distanced himself from the subject (the rangefinder). Before that cameras were too large and film emulsions too slow for the idea to be realised. So the concept had to wait for the appropriate technology before it could appear. In the same way ideas about photography and art are often (but not always) dependent on technological development. And will continue to be. As new technlogy comes along the ideas, such as the 'decisive moment', surrounding the possibilities it presents will follow. Other ideas are older and derive from other activities such as painting. These can be adopted and adapted to the new technology with whatever adjustments are required to fit the times.</p>

<p >PS</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Most modern cams have a built in motor drives and if you keep your finger pressed on the big button it will take numerous frames per second. I suppose if you have a faster video frame rate you might capture the in between shots which may well be your masterpiece. Jeeze. </p>

<p>My thinking largely parallels Allen's. A high enough frame rate would make it possible to catch a moment once it is imminent, but otherwise there will be many near misses with even 30 frames per second. It's about seeing and anticipating, not just reacting.<br>

Most people don't know that at the moment the famous photo of the flag-raising on Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima was made by Joe Rosenthal, three feet to his right a movie camera was rolling. But it was Rosenthal's single shot that is immortal.</p>

<p>Julie H:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“Just so must it be for the person trying to pick photos from video. They are stuck with what they've got. They can't move or turn or zoom or in any way be "in" the scene in order to find the picture -- which is done as much with the body as the eyes.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've done some experiments, and the best approach for me is to shoot only a second or two. In principle, its exactly the same as using a motor drive, or nowadays "burst mode".<br>

Back in film days I gave up using a motor drive for most things because the photograph I wanted was always between frames; the same s true now with burst mode. With video, the probability of a hit is much higher ... but I lose my connection with the result, which is far more important to me.<br>

Coming back to the original question ... whether I shoot several frames by judgement, by motor/burst or by video, what I end up with is the same thing: a "contact sheet" of separate frames, there is no shift of paradigm.</p>

<p>Ernest B:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"a photo.net thread is not thought. It's a record of the sequence of fingers hitting touch-sensitive keyboards."</em><br /> How is this second statement any less significant or valid than the first?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's <em>not</em> any less significant or valid ... it is an alternative illustration of the fundamental philosophical point that model is not reality (or, signifier is not signified) − a mistake which we all frequently make.<br /> It's essential to separate artefact from affect. Steve Cantelow finds it “...hard to divorce myself from the notion of time whenever I observe a photograph. It just feels so 'implied' to me...'' and he is talking (validly) about affect: the result within himself of viewing the artefact. But the artefact (photograph) itself is (as Julie points out) a different thing. The same crucial distinction, as you illustrate with you example, exists between a PN thread and the thoughts of its contributors. In both cases, slippage is immense ... possibly even more so in the second example.</p>

<p>Felix,</p>

<p>Agreed; that there is no paradigm shift but also that a span of a few seconds could be handy. For example, due to the daggone shutter lag in the camera I use to shoot birds, I miss an awful lot of shots. It's not that I don't press the shutter release at the right time (I am perfect, after all) but that the stupid camera has to think about it for a while before it gets around to actually doing what I told it to do.</p>

<p>Earnest B.,</p>

<p>I am suspecting that it was your intent to make my head explode ... Where do I begin? You said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"How is this second statement any less significant or valid than the first?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>*<em>knitting my brow and trying very hard</em>*</p>

<p>I suppose the sun <em>could</em> be a conscioius being deliberately sprinkling little showers of photons onto our camera film/sensors in tasteful and meaningful ways, and Earnest B <em>could</em> be a text-generating automaton absent any supporting or conflicting or unrelated/parallel sensations/motivations/intentions. Or, if Earnest B. is not an automaton, there will be a lot of cognitive scientists, neurobiologists, and linguists who will want very much to talk to him -- not to mention the poets who will worship him and want to kiss his feet. (Note to Earnest B. -- quick, go buy some purple slippers with gold tassles!).</p>

<p>Julie and Felix,</p>

<p>A photograph is created in time. It exists in time. It is destroyed, or lost, or gradually disintegrates, in time.</p>

<p>And whatever image was optically "captured" (fixed in silver particles, or pixels) in the visible plane of that photograph, also exists/existed <em>in time</em>, with a distinct beginning and end--points maybe only 1/2000 second apart, or maybe much longer. It is of course "<em>a record of the configuration of light</em>"--but only as light was configured at that one specific time, on that one particular spatial plane. How can a photograph <em>not</em> be "about" time?</p>

<p>And of course, Julie, you didn't actually write that "a photograph is not ABOUT time".</p>

<p>You wrote that <em>"a photograph <strong>IS NOT</strong> time. It's a record of the configuration of light hitting a light-sensitive receiver."</em> [emphasis added]</p>

<p>My simple question: What does that mean? (I still don't know.)</p>

<p>If one accepts the laws of physics, time is a defining, essential dimension of everything that exists: not the only dimension, but one of them.</p>

<p>And in terms of human consciousness, our thoughts and emotions (affect)--the primary significance, value and appeal of photographs seems (to me, anyway) to be bound up in their inherent connection to time. Photographs effectively freeze its passage, at least within the borders of a given image. They make possible sustained, repeated consideration of events and things--even days or years or centuries after the occurrence, or after the subjects themselves have ceased to exist.</p>

<p>They freeze time in the same way that a Photo.net thread in a server somewhere is now freezing this exchange of thoughts between us. <em>Of course</em> this thread is "a record of keystrokes", but as Felix notes, it's not <em>only</em> that. It can be defined in other ways too, with equal or greater validity, according to its place in other frames of reference--the server is enabling and preserving this "exchange of thoughts".</p>

<p>By exact parallel: a photograph is <em>of course</em> "a record of the configuration of light hitting a light-sensitive receiver", but not <em>only</em> that. With equal or greater validity (in other frames of reference) a photograph can be defined as a frozen moment in time, a social document, a legal proof, or the face of someone who has long since died. The connection to time (whether explicit or implied) seems basic to almost every useful definition.</p>

<p>(Julie, thanks very much for the tip about buying purple slippers. I'll have to determine first, though, whether or not I'm actually a text-generating automaton....if I am, they likely would not get much use.)</p>

<p>Earnest B.,</p>

<p>I am stumped. By your definition, absolutely <em>everything</em> is a record of time.</p>

<p>I put a photograph of an apple in my lunchbox but at lunchtime I went hungry.</p>

<p>[<em>The purple slippers are for iff you are not an automaton; for the benefit of the poets who will be kissing your toes. At least put on some fresh, clean socks, please.]</em></p>

<p>If <strong>Ernest</strong> is onto something, which I think he is, it could help <strong>Julie</strong> in considering the lagging of her camera behind her finger-pushing action. Time is something that allows for anticipation. I'm not experienced with birds, but I do know that a lot of them move a lot faster than people, especially the age group of people I tend to work with. So I don't know how well one can anticipate the actions or "expressions" of birds, but I think I have a good photographic sense of people and do often find myself anticipating in my gut by instants what is going to happen. <strong>Luis</strong> has talked much about dance, <em>pax de deux</em>, to be specific, and there's no reason I can't relate to my own relationship to the "decisive moment" as such a balletic duet. My partner, the moment, is not synchronous with me. We are in counterpoint. I'm by no means always right in my anticipation and when I am, it may feel like a happy accident but one I can own because I am tuned in . . . in advance. If one is using a digicam to capture the few "moments" in which they anticipate a good single still will emerge, they are still anticipating.</p>

<p>I think I am always using time, since I exist in it, as <strong>Ernest</strong> points out (as well as space . . . however I define those), but I think I am shooting time -- or my photographs are <em>about</em> time or a <em>record</em> of it -- much less. I think some folks' photographs are much more about time than mine.</p>

<p>Where I part company with <strong>Ernest</strong> is in the emphasis he places on time relative to photographs in this context. Because, in the context he describes, since <em>every</em> action depends on time then time would be and probably is of primary significance and value to every action we take.</p>

<p>The act of photographing is spread over a great deal of time, for me. From thinking about what I'm going to do, to going out and taking the picture, to coming home and sorting through what I took, to processing, to display, and then onto me as viewer and then the outside world as viewer. That process takes place in time. But it can vary widely in terms of how much it is <em>about</em> time or reflective of it. I can be conscious and I can be self conscious. Not all consciousness is self consciousness. The photographic process takes place in time but that process does not always reflect on itself as a process in time. Sometimes that process tells a different story. A photograph's primary story may be much more about space, or depth, or texture, or family, etc. For example, many photographs strike me as much more compositional than temporal.</p>

<p>Music and dance are intimately related to time. Melody, rhythm, and movement depend on time in a different intimate way than a still photograph does. It takes 6 minutes and 30 seconds to hear a particular completed piece of music. The experience of a photograph doesn't relate to time in as specific and closed a manner. Generally speaking, I feel much more connected to time by music and dance than I do by photographs. As viewer, my experience of a photograph is not dependent on an alloted portion of time as when I am listening to a piece of music or watching a dance. Now, of course, there are times when a photograph will suggest and/or reflect time in such a profound way that it will blow my mind.</p>

<p>P.S. Julie and I were writing simultaneously and I obviously agree with how she sees Ernest's definition.</p>

<p>Julie,</p>

<p>I confess I'm not following your logic here.</p>

<p>Yesterday at noon, when you opened your lunchbox and examined the paper image (photograph) of an apple that had been made three weeks before, you had in your hands (drumroll, flourish of trumpets)....a paper image of an apple, <em>frozen in time</em> three weeks before (i.e., an image of the apple as it had then existed, and appeared).</p>

<p>In the meantime, that particular apple had gone bad in your refrigerator, or had gone through somebody's digestive tract....whatever the details, by yesterday at noon, it was no more.</p>

<p>If, in my earlier post, I unwittingly implied some connection between the principal useful definition of a photograph (i.e., "an image fixed in time") and the edibility of the piece of paper bearing that image...please accept my assurance that it was unintentional.</p>

<p>But since you have raised the issue, please substitute your own (still unexplained!) words, and elaborate: Do you, Julie, often wrap your teeth around a juicy, sweet <em>"configuration of light hitting a light-sensitive receiver"</em> that is<em> "not time"? </em>Is this configuration more filling than a paper photo? (If you use a wide-angle lens, do you give it more nutritional value?)<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Poetically-inclined automaton that I may be, I just don't see the relevance of any of this. <em> </em></p>

<p><em>(And I already wear clean socks--not photographs of socks--as a matter of principle, thank you. Although the slippers would be nice.) </em></p>