Whatever remains...

"....whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

- A quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, speaking through the persona of Sherlock Holmes. But is that itself true? Is 'whatever remains' always the truth?

 

It dawned on me the other day - several decades late - that what we see in any modern film process is 'whatever remains'. Because whether we make a print, scan or digital copy from a negative, what we're seeing is not the direct result of photons hitting the emulsion, but the space in between those developed 'grains' or dye clouds. Manifested as black or coloured dots on a screen or paper. And exactly the same goes for reversal film, although the process makes that less obvious.

 

So what we're seeing is what's left in a metaphorical sieve, and not what passed through it.

 

Perhaps the reason I always favoured shooting negative film, in colour as well as B&W, was the extra control it gives over the final appearance of 'whatever remains'.

 

Reversal film automates that stage of printing its initial negative image, and thereby appeals to me far less.

 

I also have no misgivings about using post processing to manipulate the appearance of my digitally shot or digitised pictures. Drawing the line at falsifying what was actually in front of the camera though. (Is changing the tone or colour a falsification? Because I'll happily plead guilty to that charge.)

 

Anyway, the point I'm getting at is: Does anyone else think it's a phenomenon worthwhile to ponder, that the negative-positive process actually 'throws away' the true image and leaves us to gaze at the space left behind, or in-between?

We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.

—Pablo Picasso

Man, that's deep, and there I was thinking you were an "engineer with a camera".

“The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material.”

 

― Michelangelo

 

Whatever remains IS the art!

. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material.”

Like the crop tool.

I expect there are other creative processes where there is an intermediate stage. For example in ceramics, I believe the colours when applied to, say, a decorated plate before firing in the kiln are quite different from those which result after the firing process. So the original colours are thrown away, but does that make the result any less valid?

 

By the way I've read that ACD was a keen amateur photographer, but I've never been able to find any of his work.

Way too complicated for me. I don't want to think, I want to react and enjoy what ever happens when I take a photo. I keep everything simple, from my camera/gear to the final processing. I do enjoy hearing what other photographers think though. I just bought a book on a beginners guide to quantum physics. I will enjoy reading it but will never really understand it. Kind of like reading Rodeo Joe's post.

beginners guide to quantum physics

I read tried to read an Idiots Guide to the Theory of Relativity but it was over my head.

I read tried to read an Idiots Guide to the Theory of Relativity but it was over my head.

Most likely it wasn't. That was more likely the excuse you gave yourself not to concentrate and put a little bit of effort into it!

I don't want to think

An unfortunately much-too-frequent refrain these days.

Is 'whatever remains' always the truth?

No. But sometimes it is, and it can be a very special kind of truth, which I'll get to.

It dawned on me the other day - several decades late - that what we see in any modern film process is 'whatever remains'. Because whether we make a print, scan or digital copy from a negative, what we're seeing is not the direct result of photons hitting the emulsion, but the space in between those developed 'grains' or dye clouds.

And possibly more importantly, whatever we print or show and whatever process we use to get there shows a transformation of remnants of what we pointed our camera at to begin with. Our photos show only what remains in the frame from the wider original scene at hand.

 

If we limit truth to the accuracy of what was before our camera (which in some instances, such as forensic and journalistic photography, can be vital), then photos are only accurate within the limits of what we choose to frame and the perspective we adopt in doing so. Nevertheless, relative accuracy can often be determined by knowledge of certain things and other photos we may see of the same object or event.

 

But if we expand truth—which many photographers and artists do—to go beyond coherence with "reality" and move toward important truths of human emotions, feelings, expressions, and communication, then it's the transformation of what's before the camera into a photo, what remains in the frame from a wider view and how we've chosen to present it that imbues the photo with its significance.

 

The truth of most non-forensic or journalistic photos lies as much in my emotional response to it as it does in the photons absent or present.

 

I like your idea of the spaces in-between, and it relates to a lot more than process!

An unfortunately much-too-frequent refrain these days.

Kind of misinterpreted what I said but I don't want to think about it.

I also have no misgivings about using post processing to manipulate the appearance of my digitally shot or digitised pictures. Drawing the line at falsifying what was actually in front of the camera though. (Is changing the tone or colour a falsification? Because I'll happily plead guilty to that charge.)

Changing tones etc. isn't falsification, even though it might be a waste of time IMHO (you can guess that I always preferred slide film, partly because nothing had to be done to the image). And besides, we know what we're looking at - the tones are the garnish, the spices, they don't change what was in front of the camera.

 

Photography is about taking, not making. Metaphotography, what you make with the photograph after it's taken, is fine, as long as you aren't deceptive about what your'e doing. You don't have to like it or agree with it but you have to allow people their preferences.

 

As for the main point, yes, it is worth pondering. It would be a good ingredient in storytelling, IMO. It just needs the right story, and a way to explain it so that the average reader can grasp it.

Photography is about taking, not making.

LOL. Depends which photographer you're talking to.

 

You don’t take a photograph, you make it.

—Ansel Adams

Man, that's deep, and there I was thinking you were an "engineer with a camera".

An engineer with a camera (or several) and an inner artist struggling to get out. One that constantly nags me not to get too bogged down in the mechanics of the process!

Interesting point! In a technical sense, I'm sure you're right. I wonder (depending on the ISO grain, photo size) whether many people notice the difference.

 

o me, photography in a general sense is relevant to the (metaphorical) question of 'what's left?. In the sense that for any one photo published, there are many more photos either taken or untaken. So the published photos are 'what's left'.

that could also be relevant to the question. of 'what's left?'

 

Photos are IMHO very selective snapshots of any 'reality' (I agree with @samstevens's comment above). So in general, any photographic/video record is (visually) 'what's left' of some reality. We see this daily in the news. News photos/videos (taken at a specific location, date, time with a specific perspective and framing) are visually 'what's left' of the full reality of what really happened.

 

In a positive sense, we hope that photojournalists submit photos/videos that reflect the 'reality' as they see it. But there's also the risk that some photographers might submit only the most 'dramatic' (but unrepresentative) photos.

 

 

"....whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

- A quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, speaking through the persona of Sherlock Holmes. But is that itself true? Is 'whatever remains' always the truth?

 

It dawned on me the other day - several decades late - that what we see in any modern film process is 'whatever remains'. Because whether we make a print, scan or digital copy from a negative, what we're seeing is not the direct result of photons hitting the emulsion, but the space in between those developed 'grains' or dye clouds. Manifested as black or coloured dots on a screen or paper. And exactly the same goes for reversal film, although the process makes that less obvious.

 

So what we're seeing is what's left in a metaphorical sieve, and not what passed through it.

 

Perhaps the reason I always favoured shooting negative film, in colour as well as B&W, was the extra control it gives over the final appearance of 'whatever remains'.

 

Reversal film automates that stage of printing its initial negative image, and thereby appeals to me far less.

 

I also have no misgivings about using post processing to manipulate the appearance of my digitally shot or digitised pictures. Drawing the line at falsifying what was actually in front of the camera though. (Is changing the tone or colour a falsification? Because I'll happily plead guilty to that charge.)

 

Anyway, the point I'm getting at is: Does anyone else think it's a phenomenon worthwhile to ponder, that the negative-positive process actually 'throws away' the true image and leaves us to gaze at the space left behind, or in-between?

I wanted to edit the above comment but my 15 mins had timed out. On FB I can always edit my posts. On Twitter I can delete my posts and start again. On PN, whatever I type in is within 15 mins. is irreversibly written in stone. Even if I get a phone call when I'm drafting a post. No criticisms of mods. I just sympathize with their seeming inability to change anything on this platform. Edited August 7, 2020 by mikemorrell

"....whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

- A quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, speaking through the persona of Sherlock Holmes. But is that itself true? Is 'whatever remains' always the truth?

 

It dawned on me the other day - several decades late - that what we see in any modern film process is 'whatever remains'. Because whether we make a print, scan or digital copy from a negative, what we're seeing is not the direct result of photons hitting the emulsion, but the space in between those developed 'grains' or dye clouds. Manifested as black or coloured dots on a screen or paper. And exactly the same goes for reversal film, although the process makes that less obvious.

 

So what we're seeing is what's left in a metaphorical sieve, and not what passed through it.

 

Perhaps the reason I always favoured shooting negative film, in colour as well as B&W, was the extra control it gives over the final appearance of 'whatever remains'.

 

Reversal film automates that stage of printing its initial negative image, and thereby appeals to me far less.

 

I also have no misgivings about using post processing to manipulate the appearance of my digitally shot or digitised pictures. Drawing the line at falsifying what was actually in front of the camera though. (Is changing the tone or colour a falsification? Because I'll happily plead guilty to that charge.)

 

Anyway, the point I'm getting at is: Does anyone else think it's a phenomenon worthwhile to ponder, that the negative-positive process actually 'throws away' the true image and leaves us to gaze at the space left behind, or in-between?

 

If you quote the WHOLE phrase yes the remaining options always include the truth.

Mr Holmes starts by saying something like 'when you've ruled out the probable' It may be after this exercise of testing & ruling out probable causes, you are left with half a dozen improbable ones. If you've only thought of 3 of the improbable causes the truth may not be among those you've thought off.

 

Your subsequent musings on film don't strike me as being even remotely 'whatever remains'

News photos/videos (taken at a specific location, date, time with a specific perspective and framing) are visually 'what's left' of the full reality of what really happened.

Yet, interestingly, a good photojournalist may capture just a moment, just an expression, just a perspective that actually may tell not Just what’s left of but much more than a full reality!* [Napalm Girl, The Kiss, ...] These photos bring us more than objective facts on the ground by also, to the extent possible, universalizing the emotion and character of a historical moment in time.

 

*I say a full reality because I think there’s no such thing as the full reality, and I’m already skeptical of the concept of full reality to begin with. I don’t think mere humans have access to the full reality of any object, scene, or moment, though we can do better and worse within our limits.

 

Something remains hidden, obscure, ambiguous, or unknown. A photographer who can express any of those along with what’s visible and factual is often onto something.

Something remains hidden, obscure, ambiguous, or unknown. A photographer who can express any of those along with what’s visible and factual is often onto something.

Maybe those elements, being hinted at, stir something in the mind of the viewer, and what's actually provoked is more in the imagination of the viewer?

 

Since we can't easily share or describe emotional responses; who's to say that those responses are identical between individual viewers?

 

Example: 'Green-eyed Afghan girl' evokes a variety of responses. To me, knowing that extensive PS work was probably done on it, my response is a rather cynical - photojournalism meets fashion... and the shallowness of fashion wins. Other people might be more moved by the picture.

Mr Holmes starts by saying something like 'when you've ruled out the probable'

The full quote begins "When you have eliminated the impossible..." and wasn't relevant to the inversion, exclusion or inclusion of light that takes place in the photographic process.

Edited August 8, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

As a mundane example:

This picture of mine possibly evokes different responses in those with different degrees or flavours of religious faith.

 

To me it was 'just' a great and fleeting effect of light. I spotted it from a hundred or so yards away, and had to rush to the scene to catch it before the sun moved and the 'spotlighting' effect was gone. About 30 seconds later.

 

To me it's reminiscent of the melodramatic lighting seen in an old B&W movie. To others; who knows?

 

Looking at it again, I should probably crop a little more away from the right-hand edge. Leaving less of 'whatever remains', but quite often less is more.

Edited August 8, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

Since we can't easily share or describe emotional responses; who's to say that those responses are identical between individual viewers?

They’re probably not. But iconic photos have a kind of universalism as do symbols because, at least within a culture of individuals with individual reactions, we also have a shared history and language (to include visual language). All that we share creates a sense of empathy. Sure, maybe Napalm Girl elicits different reactions depending on whether you were for or against the Vietnam War just as your crosses may elicit different responses from believers and non-believers. But the power of those symbols transcend their meaning. The cross isn’t the same to me, a Jew, as it might be to a practicing Christian, but I don’t divorce myself from its meaning just because I don’t believe about it what others do. Like it or not, the cross is a big part of the culture I grew up in and, when used in art effectively, has a universalizing factor that we do share.

 

I don’t think even the author of a photo which prominently displays austerely lit crosses can try to divorce himself from their cultural symbolism regardless of the reason for photographing them.

To me it was 'just' a great and fleeting effect of light.

Perhaps that’s what caught your eye at first before you even realized they were crosses. Often, I’ll see lighting that draws me to take a photo, regardless of the subject being lit, only to realize what the subject is a second or a moment later. But once you know what the subject is, that subject can’t be denied.

 

The beauty, mystery, and our differing emotional responses to photos lies in the play between more abstract qualities such as form, shape, texture, light and dark and more narrative or literal qualities we can derive from content, subject, symbols, etc. All those iconic photos, in journalism and in art, would not become iconic if there wasn’t a lot we were sharing about them and their effects on us.

 

When we go to a comedy movie, we might be in a bad mood or not understand or relate to the humor, but most of the audience will be laughing because of something significant that’s being shared.

 

Same with your photo. The content, the lighting which creates a mood, and other tangible and intangible elements assure us that while your photo won’t take our individuality from us, it will allow viewers to share many things as well.

To me it was 'just' a great and fleeting effect of light.

That’s likely a big factor in why the photo doesn’t strike much of a chord with me. I get why folks are impressed by this kind of lighting and why photos of stark contrast grab people. But photos that stay with me are ones that have more than just that, as you say. If I were led to a place of reverence for those crosses (despite the fact I don’t particularly revere the cross), through perspective, focus, composition, or other means, I’d take the photo more personally. Likewise, if I were led to a place of irreverence for the cross, I’d take it more personally. Those aren’t the only two possibilities, just examples. Photos that elicit emotion in me usually have an interaction among subject, lighting, composition, distance, perspective, angle, and other factors, an orchestration if you will. There are exceptions, where the lighting may be so profound that what’s illuminated is relatively unimportant.

 

I think we’re actually sharing a lot, because we agree that it’s “just a great and fleeting effect of light.” My reaction is that it had the potential to be more if you’d not ignored the symbol and whatever emotional reaction you might have had to it, good, bad, or indifferent. [Being indifferent is different from expressing indifference.]

“To me it's reminiscent of the melodramatic lighting seen in an old B&W movie. To others; who knows?”

That is EXACTLY what immediately came to mind the instant I saw the photo.

Excellent.

I really like it.

Photographs like this are Good Cake that many appreciate for similar reasons.

But a Special Icing is added by our own personal conscience and life experiences and memories which on rare occasion impart an ethereal quality.

Not a regular experience for me but quite appreciated when it happens.

Thanks again for posting this.

You Made My Day.