cyanatic

95% of the time, 1 camera with a 21mm or 35mm prime. Maybe a lens cloth in a pocket and a plastic bag if there's a threat of rain. If there's an event (Women's March, Political Protest, Gay Pride Parade, Air and Water Show, etc.) I might carry two cameras, one with a 21mm, and one with a 50mm or sometimes a telephoto. Maybe an extra memory card too. Almost never carry any kind of pack.

<p>90% of the time I carry a Pentax K5 IIs with a 35mm prime. No bag.</p>

<p>Les -- Wow! You are spot on. These are wonderful, many going well beyond just being photographs of cats. (I love both cats and dogs, and will always gladly view photos of them anyway, but these are exceptional images.) Thanks for sharing these. </p>

<p>[Laughing at Karim's "I can haz kat fotoz?")</p>

<p>Gloomy day in Chicago</p><div></div>

<p>Accepting these as contest photos (which encompasses, and agrees with, the comments made by Arthur, Fred, Julie, and Gordon) the photos which struck me the most were the unusual looking woman with the sphinx cat (definitely has the "glossiness" that Fred mentioned), and the immigrants climbing under the barbed wire. The glossiness works with the surreal nature of the former, but the latter seems posed and forced, like a propaganda piece. </p>

<p>Thank you all! I have heard of Eric Hendrickson as well so I will give him a try. I appreciate the advice.</p>

<p>I have a Pentax 43mm Limited that I bought in 2007. Beautiful lens. I do almost exclusively street shooting these days and have been using a 35 and 21 for the last two years. I kept the 43 in its original leather bag, inside a camera bag. </p>

<p>I recently took out the 43 to use it again (I have K5 and K5iis bodies) and I could not get it to focus any closer than almost 6 feet. It should have a minimum distance of about 1.5 ft. I looked at it and it seemed as if the manual focus ring was bound up. Being the impatient gorilla that I am, I decide to set it to manual focus and move the focus ring past the point where it was bound up. It worked at first, and then I realized that the housing that holds the front element (I do not know the correct term) had moved out way beyond from where it should be (to the point that there is actually a small gap between this housing and the main body of the lens) and the focus ring is completely bound up.</p>

<p>I do not want to write off this lens and I'm looking for recommendations on where to send it for repair, if it can be repaired. Ricoh/Pentax? Or?</p>

<p>Thanks for any suggestions.</p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p> </p>

<p>.</p><div></div>

<p>I don't know Suzanne Stein personally, but I have been following her work on Instagram and her website for a while now. I share all of the reservations about taking these kinds of photographs that many of you have already expressed. However, I believe Stein's work is consistent and strong. I differentiate between the kind of dedicated, immersive work that she does with the type of photographer who only occasionally takes the quick and easy shot of some disadvantaged person sitting or laying on the sidewalk. In the end, disapproval of this kind of photography is subjective, a personal judgment call. If I separate myself from the subjects and locale and concentrate only on the photographs themselves, I can appreciate the strength of her body of work. I don't want to condemn it or defend it. It is what it is and will impact different people differently. [brilliant insight on my part, eh? ;-) ] </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Supriyo Battacharya: <em>Reminds me of annealing ... heat up a substance and cool down slowly, it assumes a more stable form. The previous form had been a metastable one, thus an illusion. Perhaps some artworks act as mental annealing. Watch --> Weave complexities --> let the mind cool down --> a new simpler truth is realized that is more pervasive than the preexisting one.</em><br /><br /><em> Not sure what I am babbling ...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>I agree with Julie. That<em> is</em> really good, and it makes sense. A concise way of expressing the affect that some photographs have upon me. Babble on. (No pun intended.)</p>

<p>I've been following this discussion for a while now, each day thinking, "Okay. What was the last photograph I spent more than 10 seconds on that I want to say something about? Something more substantive than, "I like it, I don't like it. It makes me feel/see Y, it doesn't make me feel/see Y, it causes me to consider or reevaluate X…"</p>

<p>I still don't know that I have much of substance to offer, but the discussion of Crewdson and Graham got me to looking up Graham's work because I was unfamiliar with it.</p>

<p>I don't want to jump into a debate (if, in fact, there is one), but I would have to say that I can "be" with Graham and enter his photographs, but I have never felt that I am present with Crewdson. Graham is like an immersive, almost participatory, theater in the round. Crewdson is a strict proscenium stage and the fourth wall is never broken. Graham is found. Crewdson is manufactured. This is not a criticism of either. It's just how I view their work and their approach in relation to each other.</p>

<p>From the MOMA commentary on "a shimmer of possibility":</p>

<p><a href="http://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/321">http://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/321</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...a shimmer of possibility is a call for attention to the brief, indefinite intervals of life. As Graham has said, “Perhaps instead of standing at the river’s edge scooping out water, it’s better to be in the current itself, to watch how the river comes up to you, flows smoothly around your presence, and reforms on the other side like you were never there.”</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>[EDIT -- I posted before seeing Phil's comments above:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Crewdson <em>always</em> includes the viewer in his tableaux. The frame is open.<br>

He leaves the story untold and hanging in midair. Leaves it up to you the viewer to fill in the blanks. So whatever you <em>project</em>, that's what you will <em>get</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Defined in this way, sure, I get that type of inclusion of the viewer. But the type of inclusion I am talking about is different.]</p>

<p>So – to get back to the OP -- when I spent more than 10 seconds looking at one of Graham's photos, I did so for various reasons.</p>

<p><a href="https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/new_orleans_2005_cajun_corner_from_a_shimmer_of_possibility.jpg">https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/new_orleans_2005_cajun_corner_from_a_shimmer_of_possibility.jpg</a></p>

<p>1.) At least in terms of "shimmer…", we seem to work in the same aesthetic neighborhood and I am always interested in seeing what someone else's camera sees. (I do not want to use the "S" word to categorize these photos because I think it has been twisted, hammered, contorted, and generally defined out of recognition over the last 20 or 30 years, and especially so in the last 10.)</p>

<p>2.) The first thing that grabs me is what I can only call a "vibe". I generally feel a photo before I intellectualize about what elements give me a particular feeling. A group of people, hanging out on a street corner, looking in different directions. Why this corner, why this perspective, where are we geographically, what's the actual or illusory relationship of these people to each other, are there any implicit or implied tensions in the spatial relationships, is there a focal point or does my eye wander looking for one, is there a message, a symbol, a cultural signifier, on and on and on until I arrive at some sort of preliminary judgement of like, meh, or don't like.</p>

<p>3.) My brief understanding of "shimmer…" is that it is comprised of a series of sequential photos, following a particular person or location. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but without the book itself I could not find the companion photos to this one. Would the sequence impact me differently than looking at this single photo?</p>

<p>My eye has always been drawn to street and documentary photographs (as opposed to portraits, landscapes, abstracts, or conceptual works, etc.) but I they are not the only kinds of photographs I spend more than 10 seconds looking at. I might spend substantially more time on an abstract or conceptual piece in an effort to understand it better, to obtain whatever kind of vibe it may have to offer. ("Vibe"? In a Philosophy forum? "Feeling" then...)</p>

<p>And just a public service announcement in relation to the earlier comments about "Provoke": there is going to be an exhibition making a stop at the Art Institute of Chicago in January.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.artic.edu/exhibition/provoke-photography-japan-between-protest-and-performance-1960-1975">http://www.artic.edu/exhibition/provoke-photography-japan-between-protest-and-performance-1960-1975</a></p>

<p>Daniel, thanks for sharing this. Sounds like something I would really like to see. </p>

<p>It's interesting to read the different reactions that people have had to this video. I read Tim's comment, "I watched the entire video..." and thought, yes, that's what I should probably do if I'm going to comment about it.</p>

<p>Overall, I think he wanders about a bit without really resolving anything, or clearly supporting his thesis, if he even has one. (Probably just another way of echoing what Tim said, that there was no real payoff in terms of meaningful information.) To me, the video isn't really about "nobody cares about your photography", it's about "creating meaningful work", "create work that means something". "Nobody cares" seems more of a hook to draw us in. What connection is he trying to make between "nobody cares" and "create meaningful work"? That you need to create meaningful work to get someone to care? Or that it is important to create good work regardless? I do agree that it takes time and effort to "create good work", but that's hardly a groundbreaking epiphany.</p>

<p>I don't find anything he said to be offensive or off-putting. I just came away with the sense that he circled around a lot of things without really zeroing in on anything.</p>

 

<p>Leslie -- I am a fan of the series and agree that the camera work was amazing. As you say the variety of angles and methods used (and let us not forget the film editing that gave us the final version we see in the episode!) are wonderful. I have HBO in my cable subscription and did watch the "inside look" featurette that HBO made regarding "The Battle of the Bastards". </p>

<p>Slightly OT -- I found this recent season to be among the most satisfying. Possibly because many of the ongoing plotlines finally seem to be resolved, or at least clearly headed toward resolution. I started reading the Georgee RR Martin series back in the 90's and initially enjoyed it. I started to become disenchanted when the books seemed to wander off into new characters and new plotlines without doing much about resolving the previous plotlines. Then there was a number of years when Martin did not publish his next book in the series. I never followed up when he finally published again and forgot about the books until HBO announced that they were creating a show based upon them. During the early seasons, I had to bite my tongue when I would hear people who had not read the books speculate on what was going to happen. I think I started enjoying the series more once it ventured beyond the books that I had read. I don't know whether the current plotlines are Martin's or if we are now completely outside the books and the series itself is creating the story continuation. I heard that the series was venturing into new territory not written by Martin, but I don't follow it offline enough to know where or when the dividing line occurred, or how much Martin himself still contributes. </p>

<p>I use both Facebook and Instagram (in addition to maintaining my PN account). Not all kids have abandoned Facebook (the popular cry is that "adults have taken it over" but that is not the case based upon my 17-year-old daughter and her friends). As others have said, you can make of it what you want. I agree with Damon that you would be better served listening to those who actually use it than listening to those who dismiss it out of hand. It has provided me a way to stay in touch (or regain touch) with family, friends, former classmates.</p>

<p>I have found the oft despised Instagram to be very useful in learning about many fellow Chicago photographers. Two of whom I have ended up meeting personally. There's a lot of talent and inspiration out there if you want to look for it. If you have a particular photographic interest you can often find like-minded groups on Facebook, and via "Hubs" and tags on Instagram. As with almost anything, FB is what you make of it. </p>

<p>There is no authoritative answer to this. In the "world of art photography" one need look no further than Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, or Harry Callahan to find examples of what you have described. <br>

Some were shocked, offended and outraged by them as well, particularly over Mann's photographs of her pre-adolescent children. On a personal level I could not do this but I do not sit in judgment of those who do. Jochen Schrey mentions the "erotic" element and I think that can come into play. Is the intent truly artistic in nature, or does titillation come into play? Even when the intent is truly artistic, there are always viewers who seek it out strictly for erotic content. </p>

 

<p>Louis, thanks! Very interesting. I love this sculpture. I'm a CAI member and caught a photo of it a few months back.</p><div></div>

<p>Fred -- I was going to mention Leni Reifenstahl but I thought it would walk perilously close to Godwin's Law. ;-) But seriously, that is an example of what I had in mind.</p>

<p>You'll probably get a lot of different opinions on this. (As an aside, this could be a thread ripe for being shut down. We used to have an Off Topic forum, but because some of it ended up being bitter political fighting it was shut down. If people address the question, rather than the politics, it might be okay.) </p>

<p>Personally, I prefer to judge someone's work by their work alone, not what I know of their political or religious beliefs. But the devil is always in the details. Does their work serve as propaganda for a point of view that I find demeaning, harmful, or hateful? If so, I might be less likely to divorce myself from their beliefs. I do not think it would be right to smear someone's work by exposing their political beliefs and painting it in a negative way. If I like someone's photographs, then I don't really care who they support politically. To point out a belief or political stance merely to take away from, or destroy, someone's business? No, I do not think that is right. But we are talking in such vague generalities here it is hard to decide.</p>

<p>I find it sad that we live in such polarized and highly sensitive times. It seems like you can't swing a short stick without hitting someone, of any political persuasion, who becomes offended or outraged by something someone else did or said. But that's as far as I dare take this subject on this forum. </p>

<p>Lannie -- To address your photos first.</p>

<p>The shot of the raindrops in the street, seen large, is pleasing to me. I like the tactile feel of the drops hitting the street, and maybe it also brings up the memory of that scent that arises when a summer rain first hits dry pavement. It's an interesting view in that it really forces the viewer to focus on the drops themselves. Not a rain-paved street from a distance, but the drops themselves up close. I don't know if that's what you had in mind but I can see wanting to capture that. The shot of the tangled tree. To me, the tree is different from any that I am familiar with, and the odd tangles and contortions of the branches make it interesting. Both the rain drops and the tree have a level of visual interest which is, in most cases, what a photograph is all about.</p>

<p>I have a somewhat more than foggy idea of why I photograph what I photograph, but what compels me to do it in the first place is a different story. It's certainly not for money or fame. To say something about the world? To capture some moments from the world? To attempt to show subtle odd moments from mundane daily scenes? I'm not entirely sure.</p>

<p>Interestingly, the link that you first provided, which leads to the Un-Posed website, is now bookmarked in my favorites to peruse more thoroughly in the near future. From what little I saw, it is just my cup of tea and I found that some of the photos I saw inspired me (I've felt in a bit of a rut lately) and made me want to get back out there (wherever "there" is).</p>

<p>This is not exactly what you were talking about, but there are times when I capture a photo that I really like, but for the life of me cannot explain why I like it. (I come across the same problem sometimes when I see the work of another photographer that I really like, but cannot put into words why I like it.) The photo below is a good example of one of my photos that I really like, but I have no idea why. I do not like it because I took it (there are more photos of mine that I do not like, or are ambivalent toward, than there are ones that I really like). I would like it if it had been taken by someone else. I took it because I was in the street (technically, along North Beach in Chicago) and something about the moment caught my eye. But beyond that I have no idea why I took it, or why I am fond of it. In that sense, it echoes a little bit of what you wrote about some of your photos above.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Fred – Great idea for a discussion. I find it very instructive to go through this thread and actually see examples of what other photographers have done, and why they made the changes that they did. Talking about manipulation in the abstract and seeing concrete examples of it (with the thought process behind it) are so different. ("Thank you, Captain Obvious")</p>

<p>I don’t want to go down the list of every single photo in this thread so far, but I would like to give my impressions of a few (hopefully without implying that I don't care, or like, any of the others…certainly not the case.)</p>

<p>Fred -- I definitely get a Hopper vibe from your photo, and enjoyed reading what you did, and wanted to do, with the photograph. It definitely works the way you intended it to.</p>

<p>Les – Something makes me wish I could see a print of your photograph. In black and white, it has an elegant feeling and a subtle power that transcends the subject matter.</p>

<p>Steve J Murray – I found your example particularly educational. If you had just talked about what you changed, I might have wondered if it was really necessary (not that it matters what I might have thought). Because your "before" example falls at the end of a page in my browser, I initially thought that you were showing the final version. The "distractions" (the OOF elbow and car in background) were not significant distractions to me because the look you caught on your "model" was so compelling. However, looking at the final version? That took the photograph into an entirely different realm for me ("painterly" comes to mind, and I mean that in the best possible sense of the word). I could really see the value in the time that you spent doing what you did . There is now something haunting and slightly surreal in this portrait that really stands out to me (again, in a very good sense). As some of my younger photographer friends on Instagram would say, "Dope pic, bruh!"</p>

<p>Tim Lookingbill – How many times have I seen a quality of light, or something striking in a moment, only to photograph it and say, "That's not what I saw!". Nice that you were able to successfully capture what you wanted. When faced with similar moments of frustration, I am not always so fortunate.</p>

<p>Okay, put up or shut up time. Fred, when I first saw this thread I thought, "All of my black and white photos are a manipulation done in my standard work flow of Lightroom and Nik Silver Efex Pro". So I thought I would try to find something where my manipulation was outside the realm of what I normally do (without posting anything as extreme as a coastal sunset I did many years ago where I created a huge, setting Jupiter in Photoshop and showed it dropping into the sea). </p>

<p>Depending on the time of year and day, the light in Chicago (as in most large cities) can do some interesting things when it streaks down the confines of an urban canyon, or reflects off the windows of a skyscraper. In this particular case, it was late afternoon and the westering sun was shining down Lake St, as well as reflecting off a building with tinted windows. There was an oddly tinted "flash" quality to the light that would strike pedestrians as they crossed the street. Like Tim, the result I got in camera was not quite what my eyes thought they had seen. Using Lightroom, I did some slight dodging and burning, some vignetting, and worked with a little tinting in highlights and shadows until I could get the quality of light the way I wanted it. Although the vibe I was looking for was more Meyerowitz than Hopper, I think my motivation to accentuate that "vibe" was similar to Fred's.</p>

<p>(Posting this on my lunch hour. This is the "After" version. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the "before" version right now. I haven't really looked at them side by side since I worked on this photo a couple of weeks ago. I'd like to see how significant the difference might be...I don't recall at the moment.)</p><div></div>

<p>Sandy -- I'd be curious to see an example of the type of photo you're talking about. I think I understand from your description but I am just curious.</p>

<p>I do notice trends from time to time. I saw a flurry of tilt-shift/selective blur for a while that extended from still photos to car commercials. Another popular trend among the younger photographers in Chicago is rooftop, helicopter, and drone shots of the city. (Not exclusive to Chicago, of course.) A lot of photos of sneaker clad feet dangling over skyscraper parapets. And then there is the ever popular night shots of burning steel wool being spun. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ray - <em>I normally do landscapes for this hobby. Mines are pretty minor, a few minutes tops in Lightroom. I also shoot the odd slide film so that does not lie, that is projected so it's not scanned and then edited. I bumped into this youtube video:</em></p>

<p><em>

<p><em>Is this what is done often usually with digital photography? I've attended some seminars of some pro's and they do say they dodge and burn, they photoshop out the footprints, Steve McCurry recently hit some headlines about his assistants cloning stuff out. So even with the film days, was this type of editing done also after it was scanned? </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find it interesting that the OP basically asks, “Is this what is done?”, while the discussion gradually turns toward the consideration of lies, accuracy, and truth (or the lack of it) in Art.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred G – <em>The biggest "lie" is framing the shot through the lens. The world doesn't come in such discreet little rectangles!</em></p>

<p><em>There's a difference between truth and accuracy. You're talking about accuracy, not truth.</em></p>

<p><em>These so-called lies you're talking about can tell deeper truths than simply "what was there."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>David Cavan – I<em> think the biggest misconception is "truth in photography" as is often been discussed in these threads. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Craig Cooper – <em>The problem is to stop thinking about what the process is, or should be, but rather think about what result you want. Once you know what result you want, then, and only then, should you think about what process will deliver that result.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Edward Ingold – <em>Photos for documentaries and journalism should not be materially altered. You should not clone out footprints and trash, nor add simulated smoke from artillery bombardment. Dodging and burning have been accepted traditionally, but times have changed. Each agency will have rules to follow, much like the NYT and other papers have a "style book" for writing. Deviate, and your employment will be brief.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Steve J Murray – <em>It seems the gist of this conversation centers around the belief that somehow there is more “truth” or “accuracy” or even “honesty” when the photo is minimally processed or “altered.” This topic comes up from time to time. I remember one fellow years ago that wanted to shoot with a lens with a focal length that would be closest to that of the human eye, because that would be more “true” or something like that. I think this type of belief comes more from a certain personality trait than anything else. The fact is, as many have already pointed out, the medium of photography itself automatically alters reality by framing the subject in an artificial way, as Fred pointed out. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This discussion touches upon a lot of similar things that another recent thread did, but that thread had to be shut down when it descended from an interesting discussion into a series of unfortunate and unpleasant personal attacks.</p>

<p>Speaking only in regard to Ray's original question, “Is this what is done?”, I don't think I can add anything to Craig Cooper's advice that one should “...<em>stop thinking about what the process is, or should be, but rather think about what result you want.” </em>And this is somewhat, though not entirely, similar to Brad's comment: “<em>Your camera, your pixels/film. Do what you need to do to help release the power within your photo.” </em></p>

<p>But I think there is an interesting distinction between Craig's comment and Brad's. (I am wandering a bit off topic here, but when has that ever stopped those of us who engage in these sorts of discussions?)</p>

<p>I may be misinterpreting both Craig and Brad, but I take Craig to be talking about personal vision of whatever you have photographed (the “result” being how you want to portray it). And I agree with what he has said. Brad's comment about releasing “the power within your photo”, is very interesting to me because it adds a fine distinction. I sometimes process not only to meet a personal vision (the result I desire), but also to serve a particular photograph. For example, I convert a large majority of my street photographs to black and white. There are times, however, where the unique quality of light or color in a specific photo seems to be better served if I leave it in color, despite the fact that I had initially set out to process into black and white. Sometimes the photo itself can guide you in a direction different from the result you had originally intended. That can be a beautiful thing. </p>

<p>And this relates somewhat to Steve J Murray's comment to Arthur: “ <em>You show flexibility.” </em></p>

<p><em>Flexibility. </em>A key word which I think can be applied to many different aspects of photography. Flexibility to meet one's personal vision. Flexibility to serve a particular photograph. Flexibility in viewing the work (and post-processing choices) of other photographers. Flexibility to adhere to, or bend, or to outright break, the rules that might be perceived about a particular genre. A landscape for example. What are the rough rules or guidelines? Set a 1/3 or 2/3 horizon line depending whether more visual interest lies in the sky or in the foreground/landscape itself. Deep depth of focus. Golden hour. Utilize an interesting foreground element. Leading lines. Reflections if possible. These are just some of the classic rules, or guidelines, that come to mind when considering landscapes and how they are conventionally viewed and critiqued.</p>

<p>Then along comes “The New Topographics” exhibit in the 1970's where photographers like Stephen Shore, the Bechers, Lewis Baltz, Robert Adams, et al, stand the traditional landscape on its head. Gas stations, mundane and “ugly” industrial architecture, banal urban structures intruding upon natural landscapes. The “golden hour” and traditional romanticized “pretty” portrayals of the natural landscape do not apply here.</p>

<p>(An aside – Most of us are familiar with “Godwin's Law” which stipulates that as internet discussions grow longer, the probability of Nazis or Hitler being mentioned increases. I'm not sure what one would call it, but I have noticed on Photo.net, and other photography discussion forums, that the longer a discussion of Photoshop or post-process manipulation goes on, the greater the likelihood is that someone will mention the post-processing of Ansel Adams. “Well! Ansel Adams did it!” As if that somehow provides carte blanche justification and ends all discussion on the matter. Maybe we can call that “St. Ansel's Law”.)</p>

<p>One minor quibble – the notion that a photograph is a “lie” or not a representation of reality. I think this really depends on how we define truth or reality. No, the world is not two-dimensional, nor does it come in discreet little rectangles. But “the world” also does not come within the framework of human vision, in terms of what we see directly or peripherally. If a two-dimensional rectangle is a “lie”, then so is a three-dimensional human visual perception. We do not see microscopically, we do not see certain wavelengths, we do not see a large view comparable to looking at an observatory telescope photograph of the Crab Nebula. But, if you take a photo of a building, someone else who later comes along and takes a photo of that same building will show roughly the same thing depending upon light, angle of view, etc. “That is the Flatiron Building.” There is a certain provisional truth AND accuracy in the representation of that building in a photograph. (I think Fred makes a good point in distinguishing “truth” from “accuracy”, as they are not always equivalent. Looking at it in a slightly different way, I think this also bears a relationship to Julie's comment in the closed thread on McCurry regarding “mapping” and “tracing”.) But significantly altering that building via PS post-processing, or showing it as part of an alien landscape with a giant rising Saturn in the background is not the same truth, or accuracy, as the photograph which simply records the way the building appears. It's not an ethical question of deception or “lies”. But one is more accurate (truthful) in its representation than the other. One cannot dismiss that by simply saying, “All photographs are lies”. If a photograph is a lie, then some photographs “lie” more than others. A pink, glowing, or crenelated Flatiron building altered in Photoshop may more closely represent the truth of how the photographer felt about the building, but that is an interpretive artistic “truth” which is different from a representational truth (in which a viewer who goes to look at the building themselves will see pretty much the same thing they saw in the photograph). The latter is, in fact, a verifiable (someone can go look at it) representation of reality and is in that sense “truthful”.</p>

<p>Although I do believe that a given photograph can lay claim to a certain level of truth, I don't think achieving that requires using a focal length equivalent to human vision (which, as I've already stated, is no less of a lie, if lie it is, than the discreet rectangle of the camera), nor does it require showing a photo "untouched out of the box". </p>

<p>However, I do not deny that what I have called “artistic truths” can sometimes be more powerful than mere representational “truths”. Picasso's “Guernica” is a more powerful representation of the horror and agony of the Nazi (see what I did there?) bombing of a Spanish village than a photograph of the actual rubble would have been. So yes, artists can represent truths in non-literal ways.</p>

<p>I am far from the first to say so, but I believe that photographs can be considered illusions of the literal, paradoxically fact and fiction at the same time, carrying within themselves their own truth. ("The photograph itself is the truth.") </p>

<p>I wanted to comment upon Edward Ingold's comments about documentary and journalism photography, but I think that when, where, why, and how manipulated photographs might be considered deceptive, unethical, or simply unnecessary is a different discussion. </p>

<blockquote>In <em>nothing really related to </em>the finest documentary tradition, McCurry <s>captures</s> <em>gives his personal interpretation of</em> the essence of human struggle and joy."</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p>Michigan Ave</p><div></div>