Is film better for the truth?

[Don_ih]

I thought we agreed that, "truth" is a concept ( used in a social context) . . ." to create a focal point upon which to argue "what is and what is not" and that if we got rid of the term "truth" we wouldn't argue about the line in the sand, or even where the line in the sand is placed!

Truth isn't a concept. It's a value. Think of it as a switch for something else. There are various kinds of switches, but they all amount to either "on" or "off". What you said, something is "true" if we agree it is "true", is still such a swtich: "true" if we agree, "false" if we don't. Ultimately, that kind of idea of "truth" is correspondence, since our claim "this is true" has to correspond to the agreement previously made. Such things as important but banal social conventions ("Say excuse me when you bump into someone") and things like traffic rules (right-of-way, using a signal to change lanes, stop at a red light) -- there's no necessity behind them, they didn't have to be that way, yet they become "true" by virtue of being codified, either explicitly (laws) or implicitly (norms).

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The mysterious thumb is not a major object in the photograph, and to use a term that rubs you the wrong way, does not change the truth of the composition.

But all your prior arguments are that removing the thumb IS altering the truth of the photograph - if you had showed that to the judge in your court case, he would have decided against you! Which way do you want to have it, no alterations, or alterations are ok? Why is removing her finger from the corner of the image ok, and doesn't need labeling, yet the Henry Peach Robinson image is suspect?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Why is that different? Many of my portrait photographs went on to receive Merits from the PPA and even ended up in a salon at Disney's Epcot Center.
Photographers that use their own version of 'special sauce' generally never tell, and a lot of people (photographers included) can't figure it out or see it.

I went to school for advertising photography and back in those times we used lipstick on tomatoes, marbles under soup or cereal, chose the perfect sandwich bun (top and bottom) from 100+ samples, etc.
Personally I always saw the misrepresentation the ad agency was 'hired to produce,' but that was advertising and the general public expected it.
Advertisements are sales tools just like a salesperson is. Are they art? Yes, they are to the right person and that is why different ad photographers get paid better than others.

Like you said, advertisements are generally understood to be fake. So I think they fall outside the discussion about photos in general.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Lange instructed the kids to turn their faces away, since they couldn’t stop smiling.
The mother hated the photo and resented its popularity, since it cast her in a role she didn’t want to be in.
That’s already two versions of the truth.

When deception like this happens, you get disappointed. People don't like to be fooled by anyone including photographers. Photographers can claim that everyone else is doing it, that it's standard operating proceedure. But from the standpoint of the viewers, they're putting their trust on the line expecting the photographer, or journalist, or whoever, to be honest with them. So when the viewer says something like "Did you Photoshop it?", he's questioning the honesty of the photo. It's why people today don't trust the media, news, and many photos. Everything seems to be fake.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Photography instruction books are full of tips as to how to make skin look better, make people look pretty, etc. It's an interesting issue, but it's separate from the worry that a photo can misrepresent something important.
You are right, though. It's not just portrait and event photographers, but stock photographers have to expect that their photos will be changed in any number of inconceivable ways in the hands of graphic designers.

The "Migrant Mother" photo is representative of a situation even if the mother herself was not. It actually doesn't matter what the photo is of once the idea associated with the photo gains acceptance. That the kids were actually laughing is irony.

Manipulating the content of a photo does not necessarily cause the photo to be a misrepresentation. It may make the photo more representative.

A camera isn't a mirror. It's a window.

A fake photo is no longer journalism but rather propaganda. It;s intent is to sell an idea to the public that may misrepresent actual conditions. Countries have gone to war over fake news and propaganda. People have rioted. It's very dangerous.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The news outlets select from thousands of stories everyday what you will read. Guess what they select? The most emotionally charged headlines. Why? Because they have concluded from decades of research what people will read. The average reader reads the headlines and may skim a paragraph or two. Social media (this includes how we get our news today) is an illusion. This is how we have evolved. The majority of people get their news from social media. This of course includes visuals with stories. My point to this thread has been the truth in photography is based on how the viewer chooses to, or has been lead to believe whatever their interpretation may be.

When I was a child, I thought like a child. I believed whatever grownups told me. If I looked at photos I saw pictures of people, places or things. As I grew older I began to question what I saw or heard, then I learned about art and what people wanted from art. Pretty pictures for some, horror stories for others. Personally I go for beauty because it makes me happy, drama and horror stories do the opposite. Truth in photography is an illusion because it is man made. Anything man touches, he eventually destroys. But if someone wants to believe the old photo of their great-grandparents sitting in porch chairs at their long gone vacation home in Loveladies, NJ is really what they looked like, because back then they did not retouch negatives or prints in the late 1800s, let them be. Just don’t encourage them to take it out of the old bubble glass frame to have a look like I had done.

While it's true that it's often difficult to know what's true, Photoshop just makes it more difficult. While today's editing programs are amazing and can seemingly "improve" one's photography, the viewer is shortchanged when it comes to truth in photography.

The photographer might not care as long as they receive compensation or awards, or "attaboys". But many people might feel lied to when they find out that the migrant mother told her kids to hide their faces so the camera wouldn't catch them laughing. Think about how many poor people would have been hurt had the public realized at the time that this photo was a setup? The public might have thought it was all fake and the government might not have provided help. In any case, I don't think arguing that the ends justify the means is an excuse for fakery.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What's "The Slap"?

 

[Sirius Glass]

But all your prior arguments are that removing the thumb IS altering the truth of the photograph - if you had showed that to the judge in your court case, he would have decided against you! Which way do you want to have it, no alterations, or alterations are ok? Why is removing her finger from the corner of the image ok, and doesn't need labeling, yet the Henry Peach Robinson image is suspect?

I am confounded that you ignore the words "signficant", "major", "change the meaning". Look back and you will see I never said "any changes". What meaning does the thumb have or its absence?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I thought we all agreed there is no thruth in photography!!! I thought we agreed that, "truth" is a concept ( used in a social context) . . ." to create a focal point upon which to argue "what is and what is not" and that if we got rid of the term "truth" we wouldn't argue about the line in the sand, or even where the line in the sand is placed!! Moreover, the term and meaning of "truth" is a rouse, no more, no less. trying to define it,iis a misdirection, started by some dude along time ago who wanted people to argue, so they would get mad at each other, and go to war!!! the concept of truth was invented by some Royal ugly dude, who just wanted to kill people. that is all folks. so . . . . . don't buy into "IT". Oh. by the way, same is true for the concept of "religion" " Government" . . . ... . ETC. . people just like to kill people, and they need to find a way to do it.. I think most concepts are made in order to maintain power, or "let other people lose power" . . . . Truth" is one of those copncepts that is brought into civilization for the sole purpose of "power". . .. .

There has never been agreement about "truth" around here except perhaps in your mind.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When deception like this happens, you get disappointed. People don't like to be fooled by anyone including photographers. Photographers can claim that everyone else is doing it, that it's standard operating proceedure. But from the standpoint of the viewers, they're putting their trust on the line expecting the photographer, or journalist, or whoever, to be honest with them. So when the viewer says something like "Did you Photoshop it?", he's questioning the honesty of the photo. It's why people today don't trust the media, news, and many photos. Everything seems to be fake.

Now you have drilled down to the core of the issue. Due to the explosion of Fauxtow$hopping people no longer believe anything in a photograph and whether or not one likes it, that is a big loss for photography.

 

[MattKing]

Now you have drilled down to the core of the issue. Due to the explosion of Fauxtow$hopping people no longer believe anything in a photograph and whether or not one likes it, that is a big loss for photography.

That doubt existed long, long, long before digital photographic editing tools.
Have you never actually looked at a portrait of a bride?
The only difference is that formerly people attributed the manipulation to others who had somewhat specialized tools. Now everybody can do it themselves.

 

[Don_ih]

Due to the explosion of Fauxtow$hopping people no longer believe anything

The deception is not the altering of the photograph but the use of the photograph - the context into which it's dropped and the caption it's given.

Using photoshop on a photo may make whatever it is people think is "the truth" more apparent.

But many people might feel lied to when they find out that the migrant mother told her kids to hide their faces so the camera wouldn't catch them laughing.

The fact of that situation was, in spite of what people regard as deception, the "Migrant Mother" photo was an accurate depiction of the situation. The situation would not be depicted by smiling Migrant Mother tousling the hair of two laughing children - even if that happened seconds before the photo was taken. People in the camp where that family lived were starving.

 

[Don_ih]

A fake photo is no longer journalism but rather propaganda.

Propaganda is not necessarily false. In fact, it works a lot better if it's mostly true. "Fake" photos are not the most dangerous thing. A straight photo that is being misrepresented is far more convincing than any doctored photo.

Journalism suffers from the fact that newspapers, radio stations, tv stations, and websites all need to make money. That money has typically come from advertisers. In order to get people to see the ads, the content has to be compelling. People don't find reality compelling.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

I'm pretty sure, no one here actually beleives or thinks a photograph represents truth? I am correct on that point? am I not?

if I may ask, who believes or thinks a photographic represents truth? in total or in part? . OR am I being obtuse? a.k.a. "jerk-like"

isn't more like a photographic print has a kernal of truth in it?

isn't assumptive sales technique that people buy into when they want to beleive? when it matches their understanding of the world?

 

[StevieB]

I'm pretty sure, no one here actually beleives or thinks a photograph represents truth? I am correct on that point? am I not?

if I may ask, who believes or thinks a photographic represents truth? in total or in part? . OR am I being obtuse? a.k.a. "jerk-like"

isn't more like a photographic print has a kernal of truth in it?

isn't assumptive sales technique that people buy into when they want to beleive? when it matches their understanding of the world?

Reading some responses in this thread I think people believe what they want and that is their truth .
Before photography people believed some paintings represented the truth like photography a kernal of truth like "yes it happened" (but the "it" is "fluid" )

 

[markjwyatt]

I'm pretty sure, no one here actually beleives or thinks a photograph represents truth? I am correct on that point? am I not?

if I may ask, who believes or thinks a photographic represents truth? in total or in part? . OR am I being obtuse? a.k.a. "jerk-like"

isn't more like a photographic print has a kernal of truth in it?

isn't assumptive sales technique that people buy into when they want to beleive? when it matches their understanding of the world?

Here is what I said towrads the beginning of this thread:

There is truth (kind of an absolute- God or a Platonic Idea if you prefer) and truthfulness. A digital image has a greater potential to deviate form truthfulness because of its ease of modification than a negative or slide; though all these have potential for modification...

 

[gone]

E

That doubt existed long, long, long before digital photographic editing tools.

Exactly so. No image is truthful, especially a photograph. Truth is relative anyway, unless you include religious/god truths, which aren't truths anyway, they're simply beliefs all dressed up for a nite on the town. Just because millions of people believe something doesn't make it truthful.

In photography, even the lens choice is a distortion of the scene in front of the photographer, and don't forget, photographs are 2 dimensional representations of 3 dimensions, they can't depict depth like a painting can. Look how Dega's paintings changed after he got a good look at photographs.

Truth? Whose truth? Want to paint someone as a bad person? Use a wide angle lens to smoosh their nose, catch them w/ their mouth open and use harsh lighting. Want to make them a hero? Place them dead center in the photo w/ great lighting, catch them at their best and use a short tele lens to compress things a little. Neither action is truthful.

We're talking artistic expression and pictorial truths here, not criminal case types of truth. Anyone can fake anything at any time, keep that in mind, and if enough people do it then it's the new truth, and the old truth is abandoned. Truth is a moving target, it's always relational, and relationships change second by second. Just ask someone that's married

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm pretty sure, no one here actually beleives or thinks a photograph represents truth? I am correct on that point? am I not?

if I may ask, who believes or thinks a photographic represents truth? in total or in part? . OR am I being obtuse? a.k.a. "jerk-like"

isn't more like a photographic print has a kernal of truth in it?

isn't assumptive sales technique that people buy into when they want to beleive? when it matches their understanding of the world?

We photographers here or the average non photographer?

 

[Sirius Glass]

E
Exactly so. No image is truthful, especially a photograph. Truth is relative anyway, unless you include religious/god truths, which aren't truths anyway, they're simply beliefs all dressed up for a nite on the town. Just because millions of people believe something doesn't make it truthful.

In photography, even the lens choice is a distortion of the scene in front of the photographer, and don't forget, photographs are 2 dimensional representations of 3 dimensions, they can't depict depth like a painting can. Look how Dega's paintings changed after he got a good look at photographs.

Truth? Whose truth? Want to paint someone as a bad person? Use a wide angle lens to smoosh their nose, catch them w/ their mouth open and use harsh lighting. Want to make them a hero? Place them dead center in the photo w/ great lighting, catch them at their best and use a short tele lens to compress things a little. Neither action is truthful.

We're talking artistic expression and pictorial truths here, not criminal case types of truth. Anyone can fake anything at any time, keep that in mind, and if enough people do it then it's the new truth, and the old truth is abandoned. Truth is a moving target, it's always relational, and relationships change second by second. Just ask someone that's married

The last time I checked, changing focal length does not remove major objects from the center of the field of view. Are your lenses different? If so please post your photographs of major objects appearing and disappearing from the center of the photograph. please.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I'm pretty sure, no one here actually beleives or thinks a photograph represents truth? I am correct on that point? am I not?

if I may ask, who believes or thinks a photographic represents truth? in total or in part? . OR am I being obtuse? a.k.a. "jerk-like"

isn't more like a photographic print has a kernal of truth in it?

isn't assumptive sales technique that people buy into when they want to beleive? when it matches their understanding of the world?

To my personal experience, what is NOT shown (hidden) is sometimes more important than wat can be seen (which is manipulatieve too).

 

[StevieB]

Journalism suffers from the fact that newspapers, radio stations, tv stations, and websites all need to make money. That money has typically come from advertisers. In order to get people to see the ads, the content has to be compelling. People don't find reality compelling.

The whole thing was scripted and a set-up. You can go on the WPA website or google the director's name to read the scripts. How could something scripted like "tell her to sit over there with her kids on each side" be the truth anyways, it's fabricated, constructed like every photograph made.

The last time I checked, changing focal length does not remove major objects from the center of the field of view. Are your lenses different? If so please post your photographs of major objects appearing and disappearing from the center of the photograph. please.

And this matters ? who cares, crop it out cut and paste with glue stick and rephotograph it.
A different focal length makes things appear larger or smaller in the field of view so it's a lie still.
There's nothing sacred about photography.

 

[Don_ih]

The whole thing was scripted and a set-up.

That doesn't stop the photo being representative of a situation. In fact, it likely makes it more representative, since it's designed to be.

 

[StevieB]

That doesn't stop the photo being representative of a situation. In fact, it likely makes it more representative, since it's designed to be.

Sure, it is what it is, and it's designed to show the impoverished people in great depression + dustbowl with sympathy. But the photograph is a lie. The only truth there is the lady was there standing on the roof of her car with her Graflex SLR and the subjects reflected back to the film. The lady and kids are actors for a scripted photo shoot directed by Roy Stryker in Washington DC designed to manipulate the American public and Federal Government Officials who weren't familiar with what was happening in the American Midwest because America, was and always has been provincial.
Like grifters trying to loot Steve Marin in The Jerk "Just look at what they are doing to cat's in Mexico !"

 

[Don_ih]

But the photograph is a lie.

The photograph is just a photography. The use of it may be deceptive.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The photograph is just a photography. The use of it may be deceptive.

Well, yeah.