is photography supposed to be reality ?

[removed account4]

alan and matt
thanks for your explanations
yes, i understand exactly what you saying and i always have BUT ....
if a photograph is a document or evidence of
what actually was there, infront of the camera reflecting light off of it
lets say of a massive immovable object (like a tree that weighs 10,000lbs. )
why is it then that that reality does not exist when i photographed it ?
i did no trickery, no editing no manipulation or funny business
( i didn't even remove the dust from the negative )
i was just there with my camera on its tripod and made a IDK 3 second exposure in bright sunlight.
as you can see, the tree's trunk is gone i have evidence of this in the photograph.
does that mean on city property, where i took the photograph it is like willy wonka's office, where things only partially exist?
is the magic oven from my cousin vinny inside the former city building ( it cooks southern grits in like 10 mins )?
all i am suggesting is a device that is supposed to record reflected light from 3D subjects in the 3D world we all live
doesn't really record reality
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/fence.58475/

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Since when is reality black&white, 2-dimensional, in a rectangular frame and frozen in time?

In case if you haven't noticed it is photography forum here. Keep it in mind next time .

 

[Dali]

In case if you haven't noticed it is photography forum here. Keep it in mind next time .

Yeah, I think we all noticed that it is not a phenomenology forum, thank you. Nevertheless, Ron789 remark still stands.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The OP question is not to know if a photo is truthful or not but to know if photography is supposed to be reality or not.

My response would be similar.
There are real photos that are truthful and have not been manipulated and unreal photos that have and are not truthful. Arguing that all photos are unreal and untruthful is not accurate.

 

[removed account4]

My response would be similar.
There are real photos that are truthful and have not been manipulated and unreal photos that have and are not truthful. Arguing that all photos are unreal and untruthful is not accurate.

so, is the photograph i linked to "truthful" ??
it is completely unmanipulated and unaltered.
if it is "truthful" where might we
find trees filled with leaves floating above the ground ... without a trunk ?
maybe somene might say the tree trunk is the same tone as the shadow of the building
so it is masked by the building but that is not the case. you can see through the fence
to the building, the door/window are there, the tonality of the wall is not dark like the tree would be
and the tree is not there...

 

[cowanw]

If you are walked by the tree with your eyes closed, you have not seen it. Is it there if the photons have not hit your eyeballs in a way that you prescribe.
Much of the discussion here has centred around the I/Me/human construct. Surely reality is something outside of what we as individuals expect/perceive.

 

[Dali]

My response would be similar.
There are real photos that are truthful and have not been manipulated and unreal photos that have and are not truthful. Arguing that all photos are unreal and untruthful is not accurate.

Again, the topic is not about truth but reality.

 

[removed account4]

hi bill
sorry for my confusion ( trying to wrap my head around this )
are you suggesting that the tree trunk only exists ( existed when i was there )
because i saw it with my eyes open and understand it is there and its a tree
but it might not have actually been there and the camera showed that?
wouldn't the fact that a camera does not have a brain to sort out
perceptions of reality and make sense of the world we live in, it
would show the tree trunk existed just as it showed the fence with barbed wire
and the brick building and the leaves &c because of the chemical and physical properties
of light reflecting off of things back to the paper ( as you had mentioned before ) ?
its almost like the camera is able to selectively ignore what is infront of it ...
on a different note, i wish my car could have selectively ignoreed the lower
6 feet of the basket ball post my fender got caught on when i was learning how to drive

thanks!
john

 

[cowanw]

[
if it is "truthful" where might we
find trees filled with leaves floating above the ground ... without a trunk ?
...[/QUOTE]
Surely the photographer has merely, incorrectly, underexposed for the trunk. Given sufficient time, light or ISO the trunk would be recorded.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Again, the topic is not about truth but reality.

The judge and the jury will know what is reality and what isn't even if we photographers don't.know the difference. They would laugh at our word games saying there is no difference.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

thanks MCM ..
when i close my eyes and sometimes dream when i sleep .. that is my experienced 1sthand reality too
sometimes it has people and places i know and are familiar, sometimes not. when i make a photograph
even in my wake-state its the same thing.
sometimes because of the limitations of the device i use to make the photograph
what i see is not what i get. sometimes what i don't see is what i get like the upload in the gallery i made today
of a tree with no trunk .. it was there when i made the photograph... unlike my previous example of cars vanishing
with a 7 second long exposure ... the tree was not moving except with me through time and space along with my camera.

In some cultures, dreams are more valid and real than life. Have you seen Waking Life?

 

[Dali]

The judge and the jury will know what is reality and what isn't even if we photographers don't.know the difference. They would laugh at our word games saying there is no difference.

Judges and juries are not there to say reality but to try to say the law. I would stay clear of a judicial system who KNOW what reality is.

 

[Vaughn]

The unreliability of witness testimonies demonstrate the fact that no one knows what reality is.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

The unreliability of witness testimonies demonstrate the fact that no one knows what reality is.

I think the important part is to question what reality is. Some just assume what they are told is true. Question reality. Question authority.

 

[MattKing]

You don;t need the photographer to say what he saw. MAybe he saw nothing. He was shooting a landscape and the camera caught a photo of the criminal. The photographer never noticed him when he shot the picture however, the photo is evidence as long as the photographer says he did not edit it. That makes the photo truthful. If he edited it, the photo would be thrown out as untruthful.

This scenario is essentially the same as surveillance cameras, and as such would have some, but not a lot of probative value.
As a retired lawyer, I've used photography when presenting evidence in court and have a reasonable idea of when and under what circumstances its use is permitted , along with how to use it with effect.

 

[removed account4]

[
if it is "truthful" where might we
find trees filled with leaves floating above the ground ... without a trunk ?
...

Surely the photographer has merely, incorrectly, underexposed for the trunk. Given sufficient time, light or ISO the trunk would be recorded.[/QUOTE]
maybe, i mean that can be an explanation i suppose
but it's kind of weird seeing everything that was the same lighting even a distance BEHIND the tree appeared exposed correctly and the light
would have been more dilute from a greater distance to travel back to me. not to forget to mention if i recall correctly the sun was shining on
that whole area ( the tree, tree trunk the building ) it was late in the day and the sun was lowish in the sky ... i've got no clue how
maybe its just the marvels of expired paper that allows a lit trunk to be underexposed by IDK maybe 3 or 4 stops to register none of it on the paper
im still thinking that there is something other than reality being recorded on the paper... i mean i tend to over expose my paper negatives, espeically
when i use a rapid rectalinaer lens and expired film. i mean if i was doing "sunny 11" it would have been 1/3 seconds at f8
but i did it for several seconds at f6 or whatever it is..
thanks though for your explanation ...
just the same, this morning as i was walking around the grocery store i thought about what a fun time i would have
if i just saw disembodied upper torsos floating around the produce section ... sounds like it might be a fun photo project

 

[cowanw]

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”___ Sir Arthur C. Clark
Sound like you are going for a Parareality

 

[removed account4]

In some cultures, dreams are more valid and real than life. Have you seen Waking Life?

no i haven't , thank you for posting this !

 

[markjwyatt]

This scenario is essentially the same as surveillance cameras, and as such would have some, but not a lot of probative value.
As a retired lawyer, I've used photography when presenting evidence in court and have a reasonable idea of when and under what circumstances its use is permitted , along with how to use it with effect.

I am not a lawyer (I have stayed at Best Western hotels), but I suspect the maximum effect would be to have a witness look at a photograph and confirm details in the photograph. Even having the photographer on the witness stand could work, as he is also potentially a witness (he may have caught something without being aware of it in the background for instance).

I doubt you just admit a photograph as evidence then state what is in it. You ask the witness- 'does this photograph reflect your memory of the event'? 'Do you recognize the man on the left'?' Can you identify this man?' 'Who is the woman holding the man's hand?', etc. So the photograph serves to place boundaries around witness testimony, and may serve to extend the testimony. You might say, 'Is that you there in the background'? 'Do you recall the two children behind you'. 'So you do not recall seeing them, but based on this photograph, you would agree they were present'? (objection: calls for speculation?) Can you identify them? 'Are they related to the man and woman holding hands, etc.'?

 

[removed account4]

The unreliability of witness testimonies demonstrate the fact that no one knows what reality is.

you are probably right vaughn !
years ago i showed a reporter a portrait
of the person he interviewed for 30-45 mins,
the day after and he had no idea who she was.
i mean if i had coffee with a stranger for 30-45 mins and the next day
saw them wearing the same clothes sitting in the same spot
having the same coffee in the coffeeshop ( or was given a photograph of the person
taken 2 minutes after i stopped talking with them ) i'd hope i know who they are ...
but IDK im starting to be doubtful..

 

[faberryman]

Now we are confusing reality with memory. The rabbit hole is getting deeper.

 

[markjwyatt]

Now we are confusing reality with memory. The rabbit hole is getting deeper.

Reminds me of the joke- 'I have a photographic memory. Unfortunately, I forgot to load the film.' (now conflating cameras with brains)

 

[jim10219]

Interestingly enough, film is behind one of the greatest science experiments of all time dealing with reality and our perception of it. The double slit experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

If you're not familiar with it, you should be. This experiment was the beginning of quantum physics. There are several videos on YouTube that illustrate this as well if you find this one too long or difficult to read. But it's well worth learning about this, because it can change your entire perception on the world around you.

 

[removed account4]

Now we are confusing reality with memory. The rabbit hole is getting deeper.

not really
the person insisted that was a photograph of someone else
had no idea who it was and i was almost sent out to rephotograph the subject
because the portrait i took of her did not look like her

 

[faberryman]

not really
the person insisted that was a photograph of someone else
had no idea who it was and i was almost sent out to rephotograph the subject
because the portrait i took of her did not look like her

Bad memory or bad photograph, or both?