Analog photography and the 'truth'

Prof_Pixel · Apr 20, 2016

For those that think analog photography has always told the truth: http://twistedsifter.com/2012/02/famously-doctored-photographs/

Theo Sulphate · Apr 20, 2016

Very few people here, if any, think "analog photography has always told the truth".

That's because prints can be manipulated or new negatives fabricated, or all sorts of devious mischief can be performed. This is not new.

Rather, what is the TRVTH about analog photography is that light from the lens striking an emulsion forms a physical, tangible representation of what that lens saw, subject to its optical properties. That original image in the emulsion is the truth.

On an electronic sensor, what exists is transitory and viewable only through software - which itself involves human judgement.

RobC · Apr 20, 2016

I've always thought this photograph of John the Baptist illustrates the point rather well

https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/...-of-the-head-of-john-the-baptist-in-a-charger

and the BBC falsify their photographs too. There are at least two people who have been fauxtoshopped into this photograph of the programs presenters

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b078ccjv/countryfile-dumfries-and-galloway

Wayne · Apr 20, 2016

pass the popcorn please

Theo Sulphate · Apr 20, 2016

RobC said:
I've always thought this photograph of John the Baptist illustrates the point rather well

https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/...-of-the-head-of-john-the-baptist-in-a-charger

I literally expected someone to have p-shopped him into a black '69 Charger.

Wayne said:
pass the popcorn please

Indeed. I just ordered tacos.

RobC · Apr 20, 2016

Theo Sulphate said:
I literally expected someone to have p-shopped him into a black '69 Charger.

That would have been a step too far back then
His head seems to have aged quite well.

And Rejlander made a better job of it than the BBC have with all their digital equipment.

Sirius Glass · Apr 20, 2016

A negative shows that the image did not have things added or removed while with digital one never knows what was done or not done with fauxto$hop. I get a kick out of seeing a color photograph with a rebate with "Kodak Tri-X" or "Ilford HP5+" or a black & white photograph with a rebate with "Kodak Kodachrome".

mooseontheloose · Apr 21, 2016

Theo Sulphate said:
Very few people here, if any, think "analog photography has always told the truth".

That's because prints can be manipulated or new negatives fabricated, or all sorts of devious mischief can be performed. This is not new.

+1
However, what I dislike about "articles" like that is that it somehow a justification for digital photographers/photoshop/instagram users to say "Look, film photography was manipulated* too! They started it!" To make them feel justified in what they do? The difference is, while it was possible to do during the film era, it was the exception, not the rule. In the digital era, it's the rule, not the exception. The former being quite rare as it was beyond the skill of most photographers, even those who worked in the darkroom, whereas with digital it can be (but not necessarily) be as easy as pushing a few buttons and moving a few sliders.

*I do NOT want to start another conversation about manipulation means to everyone. That is another subject beaten to death.

RobC · Apr 21, 2016

There used to be a saying that "A photograph never lies". Well you shouldn't need to do much photography before you realise that all photographs lie. They are all abstractions from reality and as such never depict reality or the real truth. How far from reality is another question. After that it comes down to what is ethical and the problem there is that ethics are constantly being re-evaluated and are highly subjective anyway.
And that is the source of all the arguments about it.

pdeeh · Apr 21, 2016

I'm quite sure that digital photography (or indeed photographers who use digital methods) needs or wants "justifications".

Just as I'm sure that Prof_P posted this in good faith, but nevertheless it'll start yet another dreary round of film vs digital arguments along with all the spurious "justifications" of the "superiority" of film over digital.

[clicks "ignore thread"]

Arcturus · Apr 26, 2016

I don't like heavy manipulation be it digital or analog. Everyone has their own style though and heavy manipulations seem to be de rigueur these days. It's gotten to the point where I feel like we're going back to pictorialism.

Dali · Apr 26, 2016

Tempest in a teapot...

DREW WILEY · Apr 26, 2016

The National Enquirer did just fine, long before digital manipulation. Photographic proof of Elvis being aboard the same UFO as Bigfoot, etc. Just takes a pair of scissors and some Elmer's glue. Well before that, the Spanish American War was triggered by a mere sketch of an alleged news event. It sold a lot of newspapers.

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 26, 2016

Theo Sulphate said:
Very few people here, if any, think "analog photography has always told the truth".

That's because prints can be manipulated or new negatives fabricated, or all sorts of devious mischief can be performed. This is not new.

Rather, what is the TRVTH about analog photography is that light from the lens striking an emulsion forms a physical, tangible representation of what that lens saw, subject to its optical properties. That original image in the emulsion is the truth.

On an electronic sensor, what exists is transitory and viewable only through software - which itself involves human judgement.

Theo nails it in only the second post.

It's the difference between subjective and objective trvth.* It's a difference that I have tried unsuccessfully for years to get people here to consider within the context of photography. The former is interpretive in nature. The latter is immune from interpretation.

If one takes a picture of a dog, one has a picture of a dog. If one takes a picture of a dog dressed up to look like a cat, one has a picture of a dog dressed up to look like a cat. One does not have a picture of a cat, just because the animal looks like a cat in the resulting image. No matter how convincing the disguise.

Pretty simple, really.

The first example is what Theo, Maris, myself, and a few others are talking about. The second example is what everyone else routinely tries to turn the first example into, including most replies in this thread thus far.

Ken

* The Romans tip their collective hats...

Arctic amateur · Apr 26, 2016

Our eyes lie all the time.

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 26, 2016

Arctic amateur said:
Our eyes lie all the time.

<sigh...>

"No matter how convincing the disguise..."

Ken

Theo Sulphate · Apr 26, 2016

Arctic amateur said:
Our eyes lie all the time.

"You can't hide your lyin' eyes
And your smile is a thin disguise
I thought by now you'd realize
There ain't no way to hide your lyin' eyes"

God dag - jeg har vært i Ringerike før...

Analog photography and the 'truth'

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency