There is no reality, only relationships and the act of observation, and truth can only be embodied but never known, as one can never know the mind/body of another. A photograph is evidence of an individual observation from which a manifold of relationships can be disclosed. Truth is more dependent on mind/body (self) experience in the world, which as individuals we do alone. Since experience is a relationship of the self to the world and include observation, reality and truth are often confused. Reality has the advantage of being more universal and easier to be agreed upon while truth is highly particular. IDK, I'm happy just having that song stuck in my head all day.
Is photography reality? No.
-
- Thread starter TheFlyingCamera
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy 4x5 sheet film boxes (US-Texas)
- Started by Franswa
-
For Sale NIKON F100
- Started by Acere
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Very nice 300mm f/6.3 Komura Commercial in Copal 3S
- Started by Steve Goldstein
Forum statistics
I'm not going to argue against that, because there's no point. But actually believing that is fairly dangerous, as it can be used to justify absolutely anything from trampling flowers to committing genocide.
Your statements make a lot of sense. As does mine. My feeling is we're are both approaching this from two very different perspectives. Not that they are contradictory or incompatible. They just have very little to do with each other. Nothing wrong with that : the same object can be observed from the north or from the south and remain the same object even if the feeling is we're describing two different object.
We'll just have to agree that we both may be right on this.
Alex, you and I normally do exactly that, from what I can tell.
OP
OP
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
No it is not. Not any more or less than digital photography is - It is entirely manipulatable, and has been from the beginning. And it is entirely possible to use analog materials and methods to create images that loosely or even do not correspond to "reality".
How very postmodern of you. I disagree pretty fundamentally, but we can still be pals
Nothing other than reality itself is actually "reality". If you believe the quantum physicists, even that's open to some level of debate. Certainly, our observation of reality affects it at a quantum level, but I rather think that doesn't much matter when changing the lenses on your Leica M3.
Photography - or, really, any art - is a kind of reflection of- and interpretation of reality. This is true even if the attempt is to perfectly "capture" what is seen, heard, felt, tasted, and so forth.
Exactly. Quantum physics teaches us that the nature of reality escapes us, the same way the nature of time escapes us. What we see is not reality. Our eyes, and mind, functions the same way a camera does: we are taking a photo of what we see and processing it according to the qualities, and limits, of our mind (simple, non-quantum-physics related is: the sky isn't really blue, it's our eyes that see it that way). Only difference is that we can do it in three dimension, but that's just because we have two eyes. Take one out, and we're no better than a camera.
Same with time. Once you realize that time doesn't go at the same speed whether you're at sea level or in the mountains, you realize there is no such thing as "real" time common to all.
Reminds me of an old joke:
A guy dies and goes to heaven and is granted an audience with God himself to get a few questions answered.
He says, "Is it true that a million hours are like a minute to you?", and God replies, "Yes, my child, it is."
Then he asks, "So, would a million dollars be like one dollar to you?", and God says, "Yes, I suppose so."
The man then asks, "So, can I get a million dollars?", and God answer, "Give me minute."
The "reality" quantum physics is talking about is not the "reality" one is talking about when asking if a photo correlates to reality.
To say something is "blue" means that is how our eyes see it. The sky is blue just as much as there is actually something to call a sky.
If someone says, "Go out and experience the real world," their statement is not meaningless simply because quantum physics or some brands of metaphysics before that claimed that the "real" is not capable of being experienced. The notion of substance as some unknowable which supports the known, is useless when discussing what you are, what you feel, what you do, what you know - and is ultimately divisive and leads to solipsism.
Talking about reality as an unknowable is completely and totally pointless.
To say something is "blue" means that is how our eyes see it. The sky is blue just as much as there is actually something to call a sky.
If someone says, "Go out and experience the real world," their statement is not meaningless simply because quantum physics or some brands of metaphysics before that claimed that the "real" is not capable of being experienced. The notion of substance as some unknowable which supports the known, is useless when discussing what you are, what you feel, what you do, what you know - and is ultimately divisive and leads to solipsism.
Talking about reality as an unknowable is completely and totally pointless.
In rereading this, I don't quite agree. Quantum physics teaches us that we alter "reality" (whatever it is), at a very small scale when we observe it. But that's not the same thing as saying "reality escapes us". We operate at the macro reality just fine, thank you very much, and it's not escaping us. It's just that harmonizing the macro with the micro reality has turned out to be a daunting problem for physics and mathematics.
It is reality that I see the sky as blue. This is unaffected by the fact that there is underlying behavior of charm, spin, gluons, bosons, and all the rest (why oh why isn't there a quark named "moron"?)
By analogy, I do not have to understand combusion engines to - in reality - drive a car.
Finally ! You did exactly what I was advocating in post #8 :
"Define what "real"/"reality" means to you, in the context that you are using it, and we have something to discuss."
Talking about it from a quantum physics point of view isn't saying it's unknowable. It's saying it's knowable from a different point of view, that of quantum physics.
And a fascinating one at that. We know that light emited by an object doesn't immediately reach our eyes. That means that something even a few meters away is already slightly in the past when we see it. And the further the thing observed, the further in the past it is.
Moreover, we also know that because of gravity time doesn't run at the same speed if your on top of a mountain than if you are at sea level.
Both these things mean that contrary to what we think, or rather, perceive, there is no such thing as a common present, a common "now".
So this means if you are on top of a mountain in the Alps or the Rockies photographing and that in your frame you have another mountains many kilometers away, some trees nearby, and a valley below, you are not photographing "a" moment in time, a common present of all that is seen. You are photographing many many presents stiched together by your brain, or rather, by its limits.
And nobody seen in these different places are "now" even though your eyes, and the photograph, are telling you differently.
Now I find this stuff - the knowability of this stuff - fascinating. And this is, at times, also what I talk about when I talk about "what is reality", a reality in which the idea of photography being "capturing a moment in time" makes no sense.
Not the only way to see it, but an interesting, challenging and necessary way.
But that's just me.
No. "Present" is meaningful only as a descriptor of the current experience you have, which may only be typified by "I see the distant mountain" or similar. Whatever auxiliary description is added to that doesn't disqualify it as a fundamental experience in its own right, which has no notion of the elapse of time between percept and perception. That is strictly irrelevant to all aspects of the experience except some extraneous examination of it - which is not itself the experience.
But, once again, this is all a red herring and has no practical relevance to the issue at hand.
And I agree that the quantum physics should be kept out of this. It is in a completely different realm of practice.
You're absolutely right, problem is you're replying to something I didn't write, since I was talking neither of experience nor perception. Damn them two solitudes!
But I get it that this angle doesn't interest people (for those who are, I suggest the excellent book The Order of Time by Carlo Rovelli. Tough read, worth it). I'll therefore bow out gracefully from this conversation and wait till they invent a quantum camera to jump back in.
Keep gettin' real, folks!
Digital cameras produce an indirect artificial facsimile! A film image is a direct facsimile requiring only development of the latent capture.
Yes..... Thank You
There has been enough word-salad in this thread and links to support a room full of politicians.
"Philosophers".? ...... you mean people with an opinion on something..?
"Reality".? ...... many scientists think we are living in a simulation.
How is THAT for real.?
Just look at the photos.... look again at the ones you like and let the others drift off into time.
MattKing
Moderator
Actually, there is some value thinking about quantum physics. Not because of its specific principles, but because it illustrates how important it is to pay attention to how we observe things, and what effects our observing has on the things we observe.
A much better - as in better practically speaking - question than the one posed at the beginning of this thread is whether photography helps us observe and understand and appreciate and share reality.
Truly, you can discuss that without bringing in quantum physics whatsoever. The photos you take and publish (in some way) can have an impact on the subject. That happens all the time. It has nothing to do with quantum physics - it's not even analogous to it. It's because we exist in a society and our actions are not isolated. Other people exist and can react to what we produce, so if we produce photos that represent another person or place in a certain way, that can influence the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviour of other people, which can have an impact on whoever/whatever we photograph.
I just take pretty pictures…
It’s rather arbitrary to bring up quantum mechanics here, not to mention the problems with how quantum mechanics is represented. Any sort of “connection” between quantum/classical physics and the topic of this thread is truly silly.
I am not talking about manipulation etc.. When I started in photography I was naive that I thought I could capture reality with the camera but no. The photograph is never the same as what you see in reality. So when I photograph the scene I know that the photo will not look like the scene but I learned to know how it would look. That was the most important thing I learned about photography.
Photography does not show the viewer what the subject really looks like; it shows the viewer what the subject looks like in a photograph.
A photograph is a depiction of reality. Only the original object can be the real thing. Even then, it's not the real thing. Because what it looks like is only a construct in the mind's eye.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |