Is film better for the truth?

[greg zinselmeier]

It’s good stuff! Mark J. Wyatt. All the same I will check my expectations at the front along with my coat. Smiley face. APUG is always a good read.

 

[5150Bronco]

Yes! Reason being when I started getting into photoshop/lightroom 2 years ago and onto Instagram, I completely thought all the images on IG were all real photographs.......

 

[Philippe-Georges]

At the end, there is very few truth, in the sense of 'objectivity', in (analogue-)photography.
The photographer's choices and decisions as the format, composition, perspective (lens), moment (le moment décisif), all the technical elements, post treatment, point of view, attitude, insight, conviction, and so many more; are so very personal that subjectivity overrules objectivity.
And, to my personal view (sic), objectivity is essential for representing the truth...

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Film is dimensionally unstable. Here goes your objective truth : D

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

At the end, there is very few truth, in the sense of 'objectivity', in (analogue-)photography.
The photographer's choices and decisions as the format, composition, perspective (lens), moment (le moment décisif), all the technical elements, post treatment, point of view, attitude, insight, conviction, and so many more; are so very personal that subjectivity overrules objectivity.
And, to my personal view (sic), objectivity is essential for representing the truth...

There used to be an expression: "A picture is worth a thousand words."

 

[5150Bronco]

I do like that expression: Seems that expression may not exist?

What about the idea or ignorance maybe that what you see in a photograph relative to the landscape is the real representation of the landscape...... One example would be like inserting or eliminating parts of the landscape.

Im genuine curious about thoughts so shat is why I am sharing my thoughts. Thanks!

 

[Philippe-Georges]

There used to be an expression: "A picture is worth a thousand words."

Yes, but what words, who's words; as Wiliam wrote: "Words, words, words...", so, tell me, what do we really read by seeing (or see by reading)?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, but what words, who's words; as Wiliam wrote: "Words, words, words...", so, tell me, what do we really read by seeing (or see by reading)?

I was reflecting on journalistic photos mainly. These have been used as propaganda since photography started. Bodies and armaments were arranged by photographers in the Civil War before the photos were taken. Look at the pictures coming out of Europe now. Are they all "true". Often captions and descriptions were written by biased editors. These can change their meaning to viewers who don;t know the "real" truth. Distortions abound.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I was reflecting on journalistic photos mainly. These have been used as propaganda since photography started. Bodies and armaments were arranged by photographers in the Civil War before the photos were taken. Look at the pictures coming out of Europe now. Are they all "true". Often captions and descriptions were written by biased editors. These can change their meaning to viewers who don;t know the "real" truth. Distortions abound.

Till a certain extend I was referring to the same kind of photographs, but also to photography, and all kind of images, in general.
As images are so powerful and can (will) be used for broadcasting all kinds of opinions, ideas and alike, where does it leaves us, mere mortals?
It's so difficult to differentiate all the messages, hidden or not, in the images presented to us, to sort out what we would accept as a truth, and aren't we premeditated in or judgment while evaluating these messages?

I do sometimes wonder if I can believe my eyes (and ears) or not!

BTW, I committed my entire career to photography (more than 40 years), as a freelancer, but many times I wondered if I was really free...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Till a certain extend I was referring to the same kind of photographs, but also to photography, and all kind of images, in general.
As images are so powerful and can (will) be used for broadcasting all kinds of opinions, ideas and alike, where does it leaves us, mere mortals?
It's so difficult to differentiate all the messages, hidden or not, in the images presented to us, to sort out what we would accept as a truth, and aren't we premeditated in or judgment while evaluating these messages?

I do sometimes wonder if I can believe my eyes (and ears) or not!

BTW, I committed my entire career to photography (more than 40 years), as a freelancer, but many times I wondered if I was really free...

What did you mean when you said: "BTW, I committed my entire career to photography (more than 40 years), as a freelancer, but many times I wondered if I was really free."

 

[Philippe-Georges]

What did you mean when you said: "BTW, I committed my entire career to photography (more than 40 years), as a freelancer, but many times I wondered if I was really free."

I mostly worked for the industry, advertising agencies and publishers, there, editors, publishingdirectors, project managers, account executives, co-authors and clients decided how and what was shown/published so their very own message, view, was broadcasted, sometimes regardless how the reality was.
And I wasn't always told what they did with my photo's, and in many occasions I was really surprised.
In other cases, they suggested, even clearly told me, what and what not to shoot, and sometimes how too.
When I doubted, in rare occasions I simply refused, then I was sometimes put aside of the project.

That's why I stopped working for advertising and the industry, (book-) publishing was much more doable, there my vision was most of the time accepted (some publishers rarely have a clear vision).
But there was a clear difference between a Catholic inspired-, a liberal- and a latitudinarian publishing house, not only in the message but in the chosen subject too, not to mention the political driven publishers...

I haven't to draw a picture when I tell you that I was the sole breadwinner, and two kids studying...

 

[jtk]

fwiw I've never "wondered if I was really free."

Freedom is a non-concept...it's also irrelevant to commercial photography.

When I was making my living with photography Art Directors and other various clients knew what I was capable of doing and hired me to do more than they asked of me. That's not a matter of "freedom"...it's a matter of personal ethics..

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well, we all have bosses even when we run our own company. First the IRS, banks, loan companies, suppliers, government regulations, etc. Even family. Of course, some of the biggest bosses were my customers like you. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

[George Mann]

Film is dimensionally unstable. Here goes your objective truth : D

Is this an opinion formed from viewing the film directly with a high quality loupe?

 

[MattKing]

There used to be an expression: "A picture is worth a thousand words."

Which isn't a statement about truth, but rather efficiency.
Because as we all know, words certainly can be used to communicate un-truths. So pictures can be quite efficient at communicating un-truths.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Is this an opinion formed from viewing the film directly with a high quality loupe?

It's just a property of the base, therefore stable films exist - just another technicality to have wars over lol

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Which isn't a statement about truth, but rather efficiency.
Because as we all know, words certainly can be used to communicate un-truths. So pictures can be quite efficient at communicating un-truths.

Precisely, or just NOT telling the truth by avoiding it and throwing sand in or eyes...

I this context there is no difference between analogue (film) - and digital photography (look at the pictures made during the first Crimean war (1853)).

 

[Philippe-Georges]

fwiw I've never "wondered if I was really free."

Freedom is a non-concept...it's also irrelevant to commercial photography.

When I was making my living with photography Art Directors and other various clients knew what I was capable of doing and hired me to do more than they asked of me. That's not a matter of "freedom"...it's a matter of personal ethics..

In this context, "FREE" was more a 'situation' in which I had to set my feelings and opinion aside, even hiding them, and switch to a kind of automatic mode, I felt complicit (*).
And yes, I had certain capacities appreciated by the clients, but sometimes there were 'situations' that tended to undermine these capacities as it wasn't feeling right.

(*) here I might lacking the right linguistic expressions to make clear what I am trying to say, sorry.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

So, gentlemen, now I rest my case.

 

[Ayne]

I completely thought all the images on IG were all real photographs.......

Aren"t they ? Is someone the judge to attest to realness ?

 

[5150Bronco]

Aren"t they ? Is someone the judge to attest to realness ?

Well I don’t think adding or subtracting real objects from a landscape is real. Lol. Adding mountains where mountains are not is not real in my humble opinion.

 

[faberryman]

Why is everyone so hung up on the truth and what's real? Is that all you aspire to achieve with your photography? Seems like such a low bar. Why bother?

 

[5150Bronco]

Isn’t deception a lower bar? Lol. I was just sharing my experience and growth. I think you are taking things a little to personal faberryman.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's not the photographer who cares about accuracy. The viewer might be more concerned with it. When I look at someone's picture, I assume that it depicts pretty much what was there. That's the thing about photography, traditionally. Capturing a slice of time and place. If you want to accept what's in the artist's mind, look at paintings.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I do like that expression: Seems that expression may not exist?

What about the idea or ignorance maybe that what you see in a photograph relative to the landscape is the real representation of the landscape...... One example would be like inserting or eliminating parts of the landscape.

Im genuine curious about thoughts so shat is why I am sharing my thoughts. Thanks!

A photograph may be a highly accurate approximation of a landscape (or a car, or an orange, or whatever you put in front of the camera), sufficient that if you look at that photograph, and then you look at the subject photographed, your mind can fill in the gaps and say, yes, I recognize that landscape/car/orange that is depicted in that photograph. But in reality, that photograph is just doing the same thing that language is doing, acting as a stand-in, just with exponentially more granular precision. For our own ability to function, we accept that when someone shows you a photograph of an orange, they are referencing a specific orange, just as when they say "THIS orange" they are referencing a specific orange. But neither (language or photograph) are inherently truthful because there is always wiggle room - I can be insanely detailed in my linguistic description of an orange to the point that I describe the surface of the orange square millimeter by square millimeter, or I can take a very detailed photograph of that orange, and show it to someone. But that description of the orange, either in words or as a photograph, A: only represents the orange at a very precise moment in time, and B: is also subject to the intent of the person describing the orange. I can photograph it or I can talk about it either with the intent to be precise in talking about that exact orange, or I can intend to have the orange be a representative of all oranges. If I'm intending to use the orange as an exemplar of the species, rather than an individual, then the "truth" of the orange doesn't really matter except that it exhibits shared characteristics of oranges.