Is film better for the truth?

[Don_ih]

A shared understanding of the basic vocabulary of a practice is essential to being able to communicate within it. Then the best way to deal with concepts that defined outside the practice is settle on (i.e., agree on) an acceptable use and assume it. For example, truth in photography is representational. It refers to how a photo can be said to accurately depict what it appears to represent or what it is claimed to be by its author. That is, it gets authorized by the photographer and you essentially accept his or her word that it is a faithful representation (ie., true).
Confusing the issue by introducing other concepts of truth without abandoning the previous version is stirring mud in the water. It makes nothing clear.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Just because something is easily accepted does not make it factually correct. At one time it was easily accepted that the sun revolved around the earth, and people were imprisoned/executed for insisting otherwise. Didn't make it factually correct. It was, though, for the people who believed it, true. You can't uncomplicate something that is by nature very complex just because you don't want it to be.

Well, people who think digital is more truthful than film should be imprisoned for their heresy.
(That's a joke, folks. Well, sort of.)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The concept of truth is complicated and thorny, same with “factual”, and far outside the scope of a forum post to deal with.
You get the merest grazing sense by looking at the first hits from Googling: “the concept of thruth”.

What is the concern of this thread is the folk understanding and the tacit understanding of truth.

Viscerally, with even the most shallow knowledge of the workings of the two technologies, most people sense that a piece of film has more “truth” in it than a readily manipulated digitally stored photo.
Various advanced in camera techniques will be able to do some practically invisible manipulation directly on the negative. And going extra devious and eager to manipulate a false negative is possible, though detectable by an expert.
But still a digital collage is far more likely and seamless.

Are we talking about depiction? As when someone says, John is depicted in that picture.

Here's an interesting Wkik on depictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction

I copied the section about Resemblance.

Resemblance[edit]
Traditionally, depiction is distinguished from denotative meaning by the presence of a mimetic element or resemblance. A picture resembles its object in a way a word or sound does not. Resemblance is no guarantee of depiction, obviously. Two pens may resemble one another but do not therefore depict each other. To say a picture resembles its object especially is only to say that its object is that which it especially resembles; which strictly begins with the picture itself. Indeed, since everything resembles something in some way, mere resemblance as a distinguishing trait is trivial. Moreover, depiction is no guarantee of resemblance to an object. A picture of a dragon does not resemble an actual dragon. So resemblance is not enough.

Theories have tried either to set further conditions to the kind of resemblance necessary, or sought ways in which a notational system might allow such resemblance. It is widely believed that the problem with a resemblance theory of depiction is that resemblance is a symmetrical relation between terms (necessarily, if x resembles y, then y resembles x) while in contrast depiction is at best a non-symmetrical relation (it is not necessary that, if x depicts y, y depicts x). If this is right, then depiction and resemblance cannot be identified, and a resemblance theory of depiction is forced to offer a more complicated explanation, for example by relying on experienced resemblance instead, which clearly is an asymmetrical notion (that you experience x as resembling y does not mean you also experience y as resembling x).[2] Others have argued, however, that the concept of resemblance is not exclusively a relational notion, and so that the initial problem is merely apparent.[3]

In art history, the history of actual attempts to achieve resemblance in depictions is usually covered under the terms "realism", naturalism", or "illusionism".

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Maybe truth in photography has more to do with realism or naturalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(arts)

 

[Helge]

A shared understanding of the basic vocabulary of a practice is essential to being able to communicate within it. Then the best way to deal with concepts that defined outside the practice is settle on (i.e., agree on) an acceptable use and assume it. For example, truth in photography is representational. It refers to how a photo can be said to accurately depict what it appears to represent or what it is claimed to be by its author. That is, it gets authorized by the photographer and you essentially accept his or her word that it is a faithful representation (ie., true).
Confusing the issue by introducing other concepts of truth without abandoning the previous version is stirring mud in the water. It makes nothing clear.

As said by others already the act of cutting a view frustum out of space, selecting a DoF and using a film sensitive to certain wavelengths or not, is lying by that definition. It only get worse the more you get into it.

The press lying by inserting fire or cutting people out or inserting them, is a small and simple lie.
The big lie goes on in Instagram and in the more geriatric segment, on Facebook every day and tells a much more profoundly damaging story.

To many people film starts to feel like a glass of water in the desert after more than ten years of that crap.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Okay, I'll play along.

It is unlikely that Aunt Patootie saved Uncle Elmer's bermuda shorts in the shoebox with the prints. So you look at the photo and say to yourself: "Really? A grown man wore bermuda shorts like that?" Maybe Uncle Elmer's bermuda shorts were in some tasteful earth tones, and the color dyes in the prints have gone all whacky because Aunt Patootie's attic got up to about 150 degrees in the summer every year for the past 50 years. We may never know the "truth" about Uncle Elmer's bermuda shorts.

Do you think Vivian Maier kept the yellow outfits those people were wearing in a box in a storage locker with her negatives? So you look at the photo and ask yourself: "Is this a practical joke or something?" Maybe old Vivian Maier dressed them up and the whole scene was staged. Maybe in addition to being a street photographer (if you think she was a street photographer), she was also a conceptual photographer, and the thesis she wrote about what the people in yellow outfits in the photo are suppose to represent is still missing. Vivian Maier was interested in social justice (if you believe what her latest biographer had to say), so maybe the photo is all about oppression on banana plantations or something. Maybe we should give John Maloof a call. If Maloof doesn't have the thesis, I bet Jeff Wall could whip something up that would sound pretty convincing. He's a master at it.

Let me ask you, do you believe that all the stuff taken with Lomography's purple film is actually purple. What are people going to think when they find those prints in a shoebox in an attic? Well, it's film so it must be true. What about all the expired film that film enthusiasts like to shoot and cross-process in outdated chemicals. All that stuff the "truth"? And what about Bob?

And just to be clear, i wouldn't make a ridiculous assumption that the "photograph were [sic] somehow an absolute, and not a discreet entity with its own properties and qualities, not subject to aging and deterioration of its own", so that issue wouldn't come up.

So my suggestion is if you find a analog photo of an egg salad sandwich and digital photo of an egg salad sandwich, don't automatically conclude that egg salad sandwiches are fuchsia because the egg salad sandwich is fuchsia in the analog photo and yellow in the digital photo.

I think you and I agree, violently. The accuracy of one medium vs the other is relative. The one seems more permanent because we have a physical intermediary that is written once (the exposure on a piece of film) and the other more ephemeral (a digital file that can be manipulated or overwritten [relatively] easily). But arguably, if the digital file persists 200 years from now, it will actually be the more accurate reproduction because instead of fugitive dyes used to form the image, the colors are an encoded binary, and therefore more "absolute".

But as to the question of meaning, there is entirely too much meaning being placed on things that had no specific meaning beyond that the photographer found them interesting enough at the time to make an exposure. I don't think Vivian Maier was trying to make a statement about banana oppression or exploitation of peeps through the metaphor of yellow shorts, nor was she doing anything to manipulate the color of the yellow shorts to emphasize or otherwise mutate them. She saw someone wearing eye-watering yellow shorts and thought, "wow, that's interesting".

No, of course I don't think stuff shot with Lomochrome Purple was actually purple. A significant portion of interpreting a photograph is the viewer's interpretation of the photographers' intent. We can know that someone intentionally used materials that distort or misrepresent reality (a la Lomochrome Purple), and any reasonable person would see that. Where things get fuzzy is when we do not know (or cannot reasonably intuit) the intent.

 

[markjwyatt]

Maybe truth in photography has more to do with realism or naturalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(arts)

Well, given that the extreme end of realism is photorealism, that does make sense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo...m is a genre of,as possible in another medium.

I remember seeing photorealist paintings in the past. Some do look like photographs.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

But arguably, if the digital file persists 200 years from now, it will actually be the more accurate reproduction because instead of fugitive dyes used to form the image, the colors are an encoded binary, and therefore more "absolute".

The only problem being that your backup should be up to the same level as your tech upgrade hopefully is.
We have problems reading just decades old formats and no longer existing, often proprietary hardware. And some things have proven just be irrecoverable. Like that shitload of useless files we often get from rescuing/reading data from dead HDD's.
And what about EMP? A huge, well aimed flare will wipe your digital backups, scramble all the data. But we DO have some first photography examples surviving to this day on a material they were shot on, proving the storage capabilities. Do we have such a track record with digital to say that theory works in praxis? Because I've lost pictures. And only pictures I've lost are digital due to the hardware failure.

Therefore I really have my doubts about the seemingly indestructible digital. Plus there's an interesting phenomenon called Bit Flipping due to the Cosmic rays: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bit+flipping+cosmic+rays&t=fpas&ia=web

One differing bit = totally different checksum ≠ not the same file ≠ proof.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

If one goes to a naturist beach, he sees the truth, if one watches Real Housewives of Beverly Hills he sees everything but the truth.

 

[MattKing]

If one goes to a naturist beach, he sees the truth, if one watches Real Housewives of Beverly Hills he sees everything but the truth.

Except one may learn about the essence of truth from both.

 

[Don_ih]

As said by others already the act of cutting a view frustum out of space, selecting a DoF and using a film sensitive to certain wavelengths or not, is lying by that definition.

Not if truth is defined as representation. An understanding of an object as representing another is an interpretation and is subject to an explanation which can include the methodology involved.

Otherwise, I already said it was better to not talk about truth when talking about which medium is easier to fake.

And it doesn't matter which medium is easier to fake. The general opinion is that photography itself is completely untrustworthy. However, that doesn't mean the average person doesn't believe at face value well over 99% of photos they see. People are easily capable of holding two or more conflicting beliefs.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The only problem being that your backup should be up to the same level as your tech upgrade hopefully is.
We have problems reading just decades old formats and no longer existing, often proprietary hardware. And some things have proven just be irrecoverable. Like that shitload of useless files we often get from rescuing/reading data from dead HDD's.
And what about EMP? A huge, well aimed flare will wipe your digital backups, scramble all the data. But we DO have some first photography examples surviving to this day on a material they were shot on, proving the storage capabilities. Do we have such a track record with digital to say that theory works in praxis? Because I've lost pictures. And only pictures I've lost are digital due to the hardware failure.

Therefore I really have my doubts about the seemingly indestructible digital. Plus there's an interesting phenomenon called Bit Flipping due to the Cosmic rays: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bit+flipping+cosmic+rays&t=fpas&ia=web

One differing bit = totally different checksum ≠ not the same file ≠ proof.

I'm not arguing for the long-term survival of the file as being better than the long-term survival of physical photography- I was just making the point that IF the digital file was still readable 200 years from now, the color accuracy would be better than the color accuracy of a similarly aged Ektachrome slide.

 

[Helge]

I'm not arguing for the long-term survival of the file as being better than the long-term survival of physical photography- I was just making the point that IF the digital file was still readable 200 years from now, the color accuracy would be better than the color accuracy of a similarly aged Ektachrome slide.

The biggest threat to digital files and digital photography is not file rot, unpaid servers, hacker attacks, bad or no backups over decades and decades etc. Even if they are accumulatively important.
But rather simply the immensity of the data set and vast overabundance of photos. Significant photos just get buried in a sea of mud, with no one willing or able to do the all important editing. Least of all the photographer often sadly.
AI might be able to help, but God knows when and to what degree.
Having limitations is almost always a good thing, and not only in art.

Colour quality is still one of the weak points of digital. Various chromes and even C41 has shown a huge improvement in stability over the last decades, with tests indicating that, stored well, they could in theory last centuries with hardly any fading.
For really important colour work separations onto monochrome plates or stock remains a possibility. Those stored safely will last centuries.

 

[faberryman]

And what about EMP? A huge, well aimed flare will wipe your digital backups, scramble all the data.

Is that why you shoot film? Because a well aimed EMP might wipe out your digital photos?

 

[Don_ih]

The biggest threat to digital files and digital photography is not file rot, unpaid servers, hacker attacks, bad or no backups over decades and decades etc. Even if they are accumulatively important.
But rather simply the immensity of the data set and vast overabundance of photos.

Not to mention oversight and plain forgetfulness. "Oh, I forgot there were 2 years of photos on that old Dell laptop that I just gave away." is probably something that happens regularly. "Yeah, I'll back all of that up next week." Next week comes and goes.
But I agree. The practically unending number of digital photos overwhelms any desire to pick through them. And I mean someone's own files. That's why people should tag their digital photos as soon as they get them off their camera - so they have some hope of being able to find something after a few months.
I don't tag anything, digital or paper. I had a stamp to put the date on the back of prints. Last time I remembered to use it, I had to roll the date forward three years.

 

[faberryman]

I don't tag anything, digital or paper. I had a stamp to put the date on the back of prints. Last time I remembered to use it, I had to roll the date forward three years.

You can probably get a digital date stamper that takes a battery so you don't have to keep up with the date. Of course, then you have to remember to replace the battery. In addition, you run the risk of a well aimed EMP rendering it useless.

 

[Don_ih]

You can probably get a digital date stamper that takes a battery so you don't have to keep up with the date. Of course, then you run the risk of a well aimed EMP rendering it useless.

I'm more worried about the sun sputtering out. It'll happen, you know.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Is that why you shoot film? Because an well aimed EMP might wipe out your digital photos?l

For sure, bro

 

[faberryman]

For sure, bro

I re-watched The Matrix last night and remembered that Morpheus's ship, the Nebuchadnezzar, had an EMP device, so Neo would have definitely shot film. That, and by the end of the show he looked like he had probably had enough of computers for the day.

 

[Dismayed]

"Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see."
~ Edgar Allan Poe

 

[Saganich]

The question of what's real and not real doesn't seem to have anything to do with reality anymore. A photograph is a real object but not necessarily what it represents. This has always been the case. The level of manipulation possible today (putting words in people's mouths and heads) makes the question of the reality of still images seem silly.

 

[Saganich]

I'm more worried about the sun sputtering out. It'll happen, you know.

In 4 billion years, yup it will enlarge and swallow up all the inner planets.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The only problem being that your backup should be up to the same level as your tech upgrade hopefully is.
We have problems reading just decades old formats and no longer existing, often proprietary hardware. And some things have proven just be irrecoverable. Like that shitload of useless files we often get from rescuing/reading data from dead HDD's.
And what about EMP? A huge, well aimed flare will wipe your digital backups, scramble all the data. But we DO have some first photography examples surviving to this day on a material they were shot on, proving the storage capabilities. Do we have such a track record with digital to say that theory works in praxis? Because I've lost pictures. And only pictures I've lost are digital due to the hardware failure.

Therefore I really have my doubts about the seemingly indestructible digital. Plus there's an interesting phenomenon called Bit Flipping due to the Cosmic rays: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bit+flipping+cosmic+rays&t=fpas&ia=web

One differing bit = totally different checksum ≠ not the same file ≠ proof.

As you stated the problem with digital backups are:

• Newer and better formats are developed
• Files get lost due to human error
• Files get lost due to operating system upgrades and the files do not get converted
• Files get lost due to operating system become obsolete and the replaced by newer computers and the files do not get converted
• Files get lost due to format upgrades and the files do not get converted
• Files get lost due to format obsolescence, the formats are superseded and the files do not get converted
• The file owner forgets the passwords
• The file owner dies and does not pass on the passwords
• The file owner dies, the credit card gets cancelled and the cloud deletes the files
• The file owner dies and nobody gives a damn about the photographs
• EMP

 

[Don_ih]

As you stated the problem with digital backups are:

• Newer and better formats are developed
• Files get lost due to human error
• Files get lost due to operating system upgrades and the files do not get converted
• Files get lost due to operating system become obsolete and the replaced by newer computers and the files do not get converted
• Files get lost due to format upgrades and the files do not get converted
• Files get lost due to format obsolescence, the formats are superseded and the files do not get converted
• The file owner forgets the passwords
• The file owner dies and does not pass on the passwords
• The file owner dies, the credit card gets cancelled and the cloud deletes the files
• The file owner dies and nobody gives a damn about the photographs
• EMP

You forgot supernova.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You forgot supernova.

You are correct. What a bummer.