Is film better for the truth?

[Helge]

Alan,
That pre-supposes that people care about what is being depicted in photographs. They do when it comes to family shots and a few other things, but otherwise they care about how the photograph looks.
For most people, how the photograph got to look that way doesn't matter. For some of those interested in photography, the method and materials matter.
Method and materials seems to matter more for prints or projected slides than images viewed on a screen, but again, only for some.

It matters greatly to most people whether a scene in a photo existed or not.
Whether that is instinctually understood, implicitly or directly is another story.

How they can be sure that they are not getting duped, is only just dawning fully on most people.

Also there is no inherent basic or natural understanding of photos.
Show rain forrest indians who are not used to looking at photos a photo, and you will discover a whole spectrum or world of ways in which an image can be misunderstood and not understood it all.
Anthropologists did that decades ago.

Our grokking of photos, depends on a vast network and cloud of social and cultural knowledge and ballast, that is gradually and invisibly fed to us piecemeal through our whole life.
And that includes stuff that would seemingly be details to even the most hardened cultural barbarian, like grain, MTF curve, and highlight response.
These are signifiers of real emotional fulcrums, and not just masturbatory points on a spec sheet.

 

[markjwyatt]

...Our grokking of photos, depends on a vast network and cloud of ...

Do I detect a Unix administrators bias here?

 

[Helge]

Do I detect a Unix administrators bias here?

I’d hope an anthropologists PoW.
But iterative understanding, negotiating and parsing is the crux of any interface.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan,
That pre-supposes that people care about what is being depicted in photographs. They do when it comes to family shots and a few other things, but otherwise they care about how the photograph looks.
For most people, how the photograph got to look that way doesn't matter. For some of those interested in photography, the method and materials matter.
Method and materials seems to matter more for prints or projected slides than images viewed on a screen, but again, only for some.

I'm referring to photographers, not viewers. Why bother with cameras when you can do better with AI in a computer? If anyone could do anything they want to a photo or create one in a computer from nothing, why bother to shoot something that will look inferior? Damn veracity and reality. It's going to destroy photography as we know it. It could make film photography more valuable, as you say chromes most of all.

 

[jnamia]

The photograph was taken that way. That is not the same as changing the background after the photograph was taken.

Besides the point I was making. First off, everyone realizes the portrait studio shot was a studio shot with backdrops. But the main point I was making was about people shots in general. As more and more landscapes are produced with AI in a computer, people will just stop being interested in taking their own landscape shots. It will become so fake, no one will care to "compete" with AI. Only people shots of family and friends will have meaning. We will become a world of snapshots. Instead of advancing in our photography due to the great technical cameras and processes, we'll go back to just shooting off the hip family shots like the old Kodak box cameras of 70 years ago. That's all most people will care about. Photoshop and AI will otherwise kill photography with a camera. Why bother?

I'm trying to understand why this makes a difference and why I should care. It doesn't make a difference to me and I don't really care . Sorry.

 

[gone]

this thread is kind of funny

and Don said:

There have been a lot of insightful comments in this thread.

Those two comments sorta sum things up here. It's tempting to call this a sure fire, future zombie thread, but there may be disagreement over whether it was ever alive in the first place

 

[markjwyatt]

I'm referring to photographers, not viewers. Why bother with cameras when you can do better with AI in a computer? If anyone could do anything they want to a photo or create one in a computer from nothing, why bother to shoot something that will look inferior? Damn veracity and reality. It's going to destroy photography as we know it. It could make film photography more valuable, as you say chromes most of all.

Photography has already changed drastically. Go to any tourist site. It used to be if you carried a film camera, you stood out a little. Nowadays, if you have a an independent camera (e.g., not a camera embedded in a ""smart" device") you standout.

 

[Don_ih]

there may be disagreement over whether it was ever alive in the first place

I thought a few people had interesting things to say (@Alex Benjamin , for example).....

 

[Don_ih]

Nowadays, if you have a an independent camera (e.g., not a camera embedded in a ""smart" device") you standout.

That doesn't really have much impact on the idea of a "true" photo, though - in spite of how easy it is to "filter" the shot using the software on the device used. Even fairly expensive Fuji cameras offer filters to give a certain "look". To a certain extent, for representation purposed, that's like the difference between using coloured pencils or markers to draw something. The primary concern with truth in a photo is how well if can be said to represent a state of affairs, which can be a scene or an event. Who cares if that is b&w, colour, mangled colour, or whatever, unless one of those aspects are relevant?

No one cares even slightly if a portrait is not "true" because there's no expectation of a requirement for accordance with reality there. People are happier if it's an idealization.

The problem with this thread is it has devolved into discussion of things that just don't matter. Frankly, no, no one cares whether or not your photo represents a reality unless it is salient to some other ancillary purpose. You know: provides evidence, shows an accident scene, captures a historic event. Your family photos, captured in a screenshot of dancing elves or whatever, no one has any need for that to be accurate or correspond to any reality whatsoever.

That's not to say that it's not interesting to talk about AI produced photos or old photos taken in costume or using multiple exposures or composite printing. The question about those things is "Is it necessary for those to correspond to some reality? Does anyone assume such a reality existed? And does it matter if that assumed reality never did exist?" In other words, the important questions need to be understood and decidedly answered prior to wasting time on these asides.

 

[MattKing]

I truly believe that Sirius and Alan have different expectations of photographs than most people do these days.
And as a result, they are more likely to be disappointed by what people actually do with photographs.
The solution though is not to declare that photographs that do something different are somehow deficient or improper.

 

[jnamia]

I truly believe that Sirius and Alan have different expectations of photographs than most people do these days.
And as a result, they are more likely to be disappointed by what people actually do with photographs.
The solution though is not to declare that photographs that do something different are somehow deficient or improper.

These days ? you mean since Photography was INVENTED. LOL

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I truly believe that Sirius and Alan have different expectations of photographs than most people do these days.
And as a result, they are more likely to be disappointed by what people actually do with photographs.
The solution though is not to declare that photographs that do something different are somehow deficient or improper.

So first we have a right to our beliefs. But then we don't have a right to express our beliefs. Seems rather limited.

 

[MattKing]

So first we have a right to our beliefs. But then we don't have a right to express our beliefs. Seems rather limited.

No - you are more than welcome to hold or express your belief.
Just as we all can express our disagreement with them.
My point though isn't about your belief, it is about any assertation that "most people" share them.
And we are all free to disagree about whether it is a good or bad thing that photographs and truth don't exactly coincide.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I truly believe that Sirius and Alan have different expectations of photographs than most people do these days.
And as a result, they are more likely to be disappointed by what people actually do with photographs.
The solution though is not to declare that photographs that do something different are somehow deficient or improper.

So first we have a right to our beliefs. But then we don't have a right to express our beliefs. Seems rather limited.

No - you are more than welcome to hold or express your belief.
Just as we all can express our disagreement with them.
My point though isn't about your belief, it is about any assertation that "most people" share them.
And we are all free to disagree about whether it is a good or bad thing that photographs and truth don't exactly coincide.

Yes Alan's and my beliefs are valid. Furthermore, our beliefs are more important and more valuable than everyone else's'.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes Alan's and my beliefs are valid. Furthermore, our beliefs are more important and more valuable than everyone else's'. View attachment 303008

Most people would agree with you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Most people would agree with you.

In my must humble opinion, I know.

 

[jnamia]

Most people would agree with you.

I don't think most people would agree with either of you. Your POV is void of any knowledge of the history of the medium or what photograph actually is, it's all posture and opinion. it is like saying you don't like vanilla ice cream so no one should be allowed to use that as a base to make other flavors. molding a negative or its printed counterpart to be what the photographer desires is what photography is. it is in it's DNA, whether you like it or not, or you admit to do it or not. answell adams would probably agree, he did exactly what you are so upset about while he was manufacturing his negatives and prints. There is no such thing as truthful photography whether it is dropping in a background in a photo studio, moving cannon balls, or moving bodies in a19th century documentary war photograph, or weegee's moving bodies at a crime scene to suite his needs. The WPA/FSA photographers had a script and fabricated their famous photographs too. photography is nothing more than an illusion, not the truth.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't think most people would agree with either of you. Your POV is void of any knowledge of the history of the medium or what photograph actually is, it's all posture and opinion. it is like saying you don't like vanilla ice cream so no one should be allowed to use that as a base to make other flavors. molding a negative or its printed counterpart to be what the photographer desires is what photography is. it is in it's DNA, whether you like it or not, or you admit to do it or not. answell adams would probably agree, he did exactly what you are so upset about while he was manufacturing his negatives and prints. There is no such thing as truthful photography whether it is dropping in a background in a photo studio, moving cannon balls, or moving bodies in a19th century documentary war photograph, or weegee's moving bodies at a crime scene to suite his needs. The WPA/FSA photographers had a script and fabricated their famous photographs too. photography is nothing more than an illusion, not the truth.

A judge disagreed with you when he wouldn't allow into evidence at a murder trial a video that was sharpened. The witness could not explain to the judge's satisfaction that sharpening did not change the meaning of the video. There was another video that was submitted less sharp from changes the prosecution made that did not show the details of a knife attack clearly. The prosecution held back the better video keeping it's existence silent. The judge may have thrown out the case had the jury not found the defendant not guilty because the prosecution submitted the less clear video.

So the point is, photos and videos do have accuracy and truthfulness. You certainly can argue that some people care and others don't when they are modified. But that's a different argument.

 

[jnamia]

your argument with the judge and all this other stuff makes no sense. photographs are not reality, they are not the truth, and im not really sure you keep insisting they are, they are just photographs.

if you don't have 2020 vision and need to wear corrective glasses would your perception as you see the world without your glasses be truthful or is reality as it is mitigated by your glasses ? I think you would not be a very good witness at a crime scene (as seen by the film my cousin Vinny). Law enforcement has a long history of using enhancement techniques to mitigate poor image quality from surveillance footage, they've been doing this since forever. you have stated that a judge says you these techniques are no longer admissible in court? does he also insist on only witnesses with poor vision who weren’t wearing glasses are permissible as well? how about witnesses who are impaired in other ways? I find this hard to believe which is another reason I don’t understand your argument..

 

[gone]

This issue was brought home to me today when I was outside using a smart phone to take pics of some film gear. When I opened the files on my computer, those photos didn't look at all like the gear itself. Now I'm going to have to provide an explanation on the ads that says despite the appearances, the gear is quite well used and not mint like the photos show!

This doesn't happen with film, ever. So yes, film is better for a more accurate representation of what is in front of you because digital just can't do it. Digital gives a weird, highly sharpened appearance at the edges of objects w/ tons of missing detail in the rest of things.

I can spot a digital movie in about 2 seconds and won't watch them because they look like hell. It really is an inferior medium designed for consumers and specialized applications because that's all it can do. It's fast and it's cheap. and a soccer mom w/ a zoom lens and a DSLR can say they're a pro portrait shooter. Try that w/ film, good luck, you have to know what you're doing w/ this stuff.

How can something that blows out highlights and can't even see shadow detail be truthful?

 

[Sean]

This issue was brought home to me today when I was outside using a smart phone to take pics of some film gear. When I opened the files on my computer, those photos didn't look at all like the gear itself. The phone's little digital brain decided to smooth things out, and now I'm going to have to provide an explanation on the ads that says despite the appearances, the gear is quite well used and not mint like the photos show!

This doesn't happen with film, ever. So yes, film is better for a more accurate representation of what is in front of you because digital just can't do it. It isn't able to accurately record the image, I assure you that it can't. Digital gives a weird, highly sharpened appearance at the edges of objects w/ tons of missing detail in the rest of things. The actual, usable exposure range is tiny compared to film, as is the exposure latitude.

I can spot a digital movie in about 2 seconds and refuse to watch them because they look like hell. It really is an inferior medium that is basically for consumers and specialized applications because that's all it can do.

Photography is a light based medium, yet digital can't (due to inherent design limitations) even come close to recording things as they appear in that light. It blows out highlights, can't even see shadow detail, this is all very bad stuff and a 2 year old could see it.

Not to get too off-topic but the closest I've seen so far are fujifilm sensors in the xt-3/4 I saw some medium format 645 film side by side portrait comparisons and was taken aback by the results. It's the first time yet I thought 'this is so close you have to strain to find any minor differences'. As for cinematography it does have a different feel, I seem to have gotten used to it for the most part. I definitely see more depth and pop in cinema film.

 

[Don_ih]

If you claim that no photographs can be understood as representationally true, you blatantly ignore what the vast majority of photos are for most people: representations of the appearance of something. Even in the instant where someone is posed in front of a dropped-in background, the photo is still understood to be a photo of the person and shows how he or she looked at that time.
It also ignores all documentary and technical photography. Everyone is well aware that the entire world doesn't squish into the frame of a photograph so no one actually expects it does. People taking technical photos or evidence photos aim to get an accurate representation. But you must remember it is a representation and not the thing itself. That is something obvious to a 4-year-old. Why is it so difficult to be understood here?
It's also important to realize that reality is not truth, either. Truth is a value. It applies to claims. A claim is a statement or artifact that is understood to possibly describe, represent, or correspond to something. The something is reality.
Furthermore, if you claim that no photographs can be understood to be representationally true, you automatically prevent them from being understood as false. If truth is irrelevant, so is falsity.
A thing is neither true nor false. So, in that sense a photo itself is not capable of being true. But a photo is not even understood as a photo when viewed as a piece of paper with developed silver on it. It is only viewed as a photo when it is experienced as something that "looks like something". The very hint that something may "look like something" invites the possibility of an actual reference and a truth claim. That is what is troubling about purposely misleading photos - especially ones that are misleading by omission or contextualization.

 

[jnamia]

How can something that blows out highlights and can't even see shadow detail be truthful?

If you used slide film or a paper negative in harsh light would you say the same thing? im not sure what this has to do with the truth.

Did the digital camera photograph / index what was infront of it? –– I hate to say it but that is the only “truth” provided by a camera.

it records light reflected onto a light sensitive medium, that's it .. the rest is expectation that the result looks like "we" wanted. That’s why people keep buying new gear, because they expect it to take better photos not sure what better is, less crappy? less contrasty? more details? less out of focus? more in focus? sharpness? depth of field? less green? less yellow? instead they should find a film or "sensor" that suits their tastes, photograph things in bright/flat/low light find a lab they like, learn the "personality" of their camera+lens, develop print scan photoshop the way they like. no clue what this has to do with the truth.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

your argument with the judge and all this other stuff makes no sense. photographs are not reality, they are not the truth, and im not really sure you keep insisting they are, they are just photographs.

if you don't have 2020 vision and need to wear corrective glasses would your perception as you see the world without your glasses be truthful or is reality as it is mitigated by your glasses ? I think you would not be a very good witness at a crime scene (as seen by the film my cousin Vinny). Law enforcement has a long history of using enhancement techniques to mitigate poor image quality from surveillance footage, they've been doing this since forever. you have stated that a judge says you these techniques are no longer admissible in court? does he also insist on only witnesses with poor vision who weren’t wearing glasses are permissible as well? how about witnesses who are impaired in other ways? I find this hard to believe which is another reason I don’t understand your argument..

It made sense to the judge. He was going to throw out the case against the defendant declaring a mistrial. The judge was also going to hold the prosecutors in contempt of court for their apparent deception.

They submitted as evidence the less sharp video. It was the lower resolution video. It didn't clearly show the defendant protecting himself against a knife attack. So the prosecutor deliberately made the defendant appear more guilty. The clearer version was held back by the prosecutors that showed the defendant clearly being attacked with a knife giving him the right to protect himself and eventually leading to the jury finding him not guilty.

So truthfulness and accuracy can be life and death issues. Do we really trust the news reports and photos in media? How much of it is just propaganda.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't think film or digital is the question. It's really the statement from the photographer that assures reliability and accurate presentations. Often there's no way for the viewer to determine these things independently.

When I oversaw construction projects for the building owners, I would use either film cameras or more often Polaroid cameras. When digital came along, everyone switched to digital cameras. When cameras were added to iPads and cellphones, they often became the instruments of recording truth-telling. Often these photos "proved" that work was done and done correctly. You can't review hidden work that was done underground or hidden behind walls after the construction is completed.

So good progress photographs that accurately reflect the construction as it was done often becomes extremely important. Of course, both sides took pictures. Since I represented the building owner, the contractor didn't trust just my pictures. So they would take their own to prove their side.