In proposing an alternate reality that doesn't exist, you are assuming there is a reality that does exist. Not everyone agrees what exactly that reality is, so you may get some blowback as to what you think yours is.
It could be a reflection of your reality, though I think it is better to say it reflects your point of view. Or it could intentionally be something entirely different. Virtually all photographs are the result of an individual's intention.thats right ... how is a camera made image supposed to be reality when no one even can agree what reality is ...
jim10219 right on !
and your translation is right,
this is not a painting of a pipe ...
it might look like one but its not one
hello SGThe reality is that what is seen is actually there. It does not extend to what is cropped out.
All the light that was reflected and passed through the lens contributed to the image and that image would only look as it does if that particular light had passed. It may be a different way of looking, but it certainly is a real and unique image made by only those light rays. So again I think you are going to have to define what you want reality to mean.hello SG
the thing is things can be actually there but be distorted heavily by the lens / shutter speed/aperture/filter that it looks nothing like what is actually there.
not so much things being added or removed from the frame. i can leave my camera's shutter open at an intersection for 9 seconds and cars vanish.
they were there the whole time but the camera did not express reality ...
I am looking at a Daguerreotype circa 1850, which is a portrait of Wilhelmina Dahl nee Weiby. It is certainly real. I know it is not actually Wilhelmina; she's been dead for more than 100 years. But I do know that the light that reflected off her and passed through the lens and struck the plate, changed the Mercury/silver in such a way as to leave an image precisely according to its chemical nature. That real image could only be that of a real Wilhelmina.
Beyond that, John, you will need to define what it is you mean by the reality you wish to discuss, because I think that reality means something different to everybody posting.
but you will also notice her eyes do not look like her eyes because of the long exposure and she blinked. its not the big things thatExactly, and you will note that she does not have fangs nor horns growing out of her head.
me tooPS I am a fan of Maris as to the chemical nature and definition of a photograph. So my thoughts should be taken in light of that.
When I was a kid starting to take pictures I thought photography was reality. I soon learned that it's not possible.
The original question linking photography and reality is so naively put - define your terms - what assumptions have you started with - how do you assess opinions offered - do you have the knowledge base to recognise the right answer - that the question cannot be meaningfully answered. It's the sort gaffe that turns up in first semester philosophy graduate courses. Genuine investigations into the nature of reality and how it may connect to perception of things in the world are part of a deep, ancient, and complex discipline called ontology. And ontology is just a fragment of the grand edifice of metaphysics. This stuff is hard going even for professional philosophers. It's been an entertaining thread so far!
The original question linking photography and reality is so naively put - define your terms - what assumptions have you started with - how do you assess opinions offered - do you have the knowledge base to recognise the right answer - that the question cannot be meaningfully answered. It's the sort gaffe that turns up in first semester philosophy graduate courses. Genuine investigations into the nature of reality and how it may connect to perception of things in the world are part of a deep, ancient, and complex discipline called ontology. And ontology is just a fragment of the grand edifice of metaphysics. This stuff is hard going even for professional philosophers. It's been an entertaining thread so far!
By 1850, the time for a daguerreotype was a couple of seconds and so the eyes are as sharp as the rest of the image. In any case if blinking in a photograph makes it less real then I would wonder how one would react to a person you were speaking to should they blink. Do they become less real during the blink? Obviously, no. But the idea harks back to a artistic convention of the 1830's and 1840's in that smiles and shadows were fleeting and unflattering. It may be the stylistic convention to flood light and have a deadpan expression rather than a technical choice of the time.but you will also notice her eyes do not look like her eyes because of the long exposure and she blinked. its not the big things that
might not be "normal" but little things that don't add up
Indeed.I vote for reality squared. A photograph is a real thing representing a real thing.
By 1850, the time for a daguerreotype was a couple of seconds and so the eyes are as sharp as the rest of the image. In any case if blinking in a photograph makes it less real then I would wonder how one would react to a person you were speaking to should they blink. Do they become less real during the blink? Obviously, no. But the idea harks back to a artistic convention of the 1830's and 1840's in that smiles and shadows were fleeting and unflattering. It may be the stylistic convention to flood light and have a deadpan expression rather than a technical choice of the time.
I thought your's was a worthy question.
Alas I am just to serious to get that it was to be entertainment. My bad. We really should have a smiley of some sort that signals the thread is meant to be entertaining as opposed to serious. For the humour challenged posters like me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?