is photography supposed to be reality ?

[Chan Tran]

When I was a kid I also thought photography was reality. I still do and do my best to uphold that ethic in my work to this day.

I found out that I see the world with 2 eyes and in 3D while the camera is only 2D. Even if I close one eye still my eye (although has limited depth of field) it can see far and near subjects clearly by shifting focus quickly. The eye doesn't really have a wide angle coverage but it can see a wide view by turning the eye ball and give me ability to see the wide view not in a way a camera with wide angle lens see. My eye doesn't really have that much of a dynamic range but it automatically adjusts when I pay attention to dark or light subject in a scene so that I feel I can see both light and dark subjects well. And then the color in my photograph is never the same as a real life scene.... I gave up on trying to capture reality.

 

[Rick A]

I vote for reality squared. A photograph is a real thing representing a real thing.

Sometimes, but not always.

 

[Wallendo]

Photography is a manipulation of reality. Newspapers, magazines, and television frequently choose pleasing photographs of people they like and non-pleasing, but equally real, photographs of those who don't (Think of a Donald Trump smirk photo and the photo of Hillary with her mouth open wider than a wide-mouth bass. Those of us in the US who followed the George Zimmerman-Travon Martin case are well-aware of the original photographs showing a childhood photo of Travon and a police station photo of George after he had been up all night at the police station. Although both photographs were "real", neither adequately reflected the individuals involved, and were later replaced with more representative photos of each. How many photos of hotels seen on their websites actually reflect was guests see. The photos are usually real, but lens selection and framing choices make the venues appear much larger and elegant. Manipulation of depth of field can remove or minimize pesky real objects in backgrounds.

Photography takes a slice of real-time and cuts away multiple layers of reality, essentially isolating the trees from the forest, if not the leaves from the tree. The leaves may be real, but reality is that the leaves are on trees inside a forest.

 

[Vaughn]

Sometimes, but not always.

Always...if one considers light to be a real thing. One can really go in circles with this stuff!

Is what we commonly think of as reality real? Is it a thing? Or is it just a construct by an individual's brain created to help sort out stimuli?

 

[removed account4]

Always...if one considers light to be a real thing. One can really go in circles with this stuff!

Is what we commonly think of as reality real? Is it a thing? Or is it just a construct by an individual's brain created to help sort out stimuli?

not sure about you but
when orpheus asked i took the red pill

 

[Ron789]

Since it is photography forum, I'll make it simple
One for yes.

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

 

[JBrunner]

Photography is not, can not, and will never be reality. It is by its own etymology a form of writing.
As a depiction of reality, I suppose one could ponder a certain idea of truthieness, but the depiction is informed by choices that are in fact editorial, despite the best efforts of someone, say a photojournalist who’s effort is to record some depiction of reality. Alas, no matter how careful and faithful the reproduction, what is in the photograph is an opinion and furthermore what is not in the photograph is just as much an opinion as what is. Photography is a construct informed by an author. YMMV

 

[ckuwajima]

In my opinion, yes, but the interpretation may not be factual. To me, a great fraction of the value of a photo comes from the sheer rarity of the captured moment.

 

[Vaughn]

I had to look up the red pill. As far as I know, that phrase never took hold in Humboldt County. Far better alternatives, I guess...I remember very very small pieces of square paper with disney characters on them. But, oh my oh my! Even conservatives have picked up the Red Pill ! From the Urban Dictionary:

'Red pill' is a popular expression among conservatives and Trump supporters and is used to explain a person who has awaken from a life of leftists indoctrination.

I like getting down to the basics when I photograph. I am looking for and using light bouncing off 'real' objects, but objects that are actually more empty space than solid (I'm thinking atomic level here...why...don't have a clue, but that's reality for you). Sight is a second-hand sense, except for light-emitting objects, I suppose. Anyway, I am looking for light, but influenced by the place I am at. At the best of times I feel I am photographing light that just happens to be in the shape of redwoods. That is my imagined reality.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm thinking about the question is photography is "supposed" to be reality. Supposition is defined as "an idea that something may be true,although it is not certain". For me, the ultimate reality is always experienced first hand. Not through vicarious experience through the lens of a camera. We do have this collective conciseness of mass media telling us what is real. The corporate culture makers define what is real if we believe in it. Human beings are naturally attracted to the beautiful and shiny things in the world. I worked in commercial photography and there's so much trickery to make us believe what's on TV is real as long as we work harder to make it real. Hence we hop on the hedonic treadmill and until smarten up or disillusioned.

 

[blockend]

Is what we commonly think of as reality real?

Yes, absolutely. In the last century or two there have been claims that reality exists entirely in ones head (philosophical materialism). I think reality is exactly what it appears to be, but then I think consciousness is primary, not matter (philosophical Idealism).

Light is part of conscious experience, whether perceived three dimensionally or recorded two dimensionally. As recording has developed in digital code rather than chemically, opportunities for intervention have become more accessible. Even out of the camera files are manipulated to popular taste, or to mimic alternative processes. As digital photography has no informational default, discrimination in its use is even more pressing than with film.

 

[removed account4]

I had to look up the red pill. As far as I know, that phrase never took hold in Humboldt County. Far better alternatives, I guess...I remember very very small pieces of square paper with disney characters on them. But, oh my oh my! Even conservatives have picked up the Red Pill ! From the Urban Dictionary:

'Red pill' is a popular expression among conservatives and Trump supporters and is used to explain a person who has awaken from a life of leftists indoctrination.

I like getting down to the basics when I photograph. I am looking for and using light bouncing off 'real' objects, but objects that are actually more empty space than solid (I'm thinking atomic level here...why...don't have a clue, but that's reality for you). Sight is a second-hand sense, except for light-emitting objects, I suppose. Anyway, I am looking for light, but influenced by the place I am at. At the best of times I feel I am photographing light that just happens to be in the shape of redwoods. That is my imagined reality.

yikes ! not that red pill !
this one >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill

 

[removed account4]

For me, the ultimate reality is always experienced first hand.

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.

 

[Vaughn]

John, there is a great short story -- taken from the perspective of a tree along a road. Talking abaout how difficult it was now that things are moving much faster on the road. As a young tree he enjoyed the challange of getting bigger as people approached, then smaller as they walked away. The tree even enjoyed the challange of getting bigger for someone walking towards it while at the same time getting smaller for the man on the horse walking away. Now with all these cars, it was almost impossible to shrink and expand for everyone. Then a car hits it at high speed and the tree thinks it is quite unfair to have to get that big that fast and have to stay that way for that person forever.

Or something along those lines -- it has been a couple of decades or more since I read it.

 

[removed account4]

thanks vaughn
ill try to find that, it sounds like something id like to read
i love short stories !

 

[Vaughn]

For some crazy reason I thought it might be Hesse (Strange News from Another Star or Stories of Five Decades), but not so. So -- probably some whacked out scifi writer from the 60s of 70s. But if I come across it, I'll let you know.

 

[jim10219]

Then again, photography could be closer to reality than what we experience with our own eyes, ears, and hands. Human experience may be the illusion. It’s possible what we perceive as real is only the result of how our limited brains trying to make sense of a entirely too complex system. And I’m not just talking philosophically.

There’s a theory in physics that suggests the entire universe could be two dimensional and what we experience is, for lack of a better word, a hologram. If true, it solves a lot of mathematical questions physicists have about the makeup of the universe. And it’s not just crackpot/fringe science. It has some mainstream credibility. Here’s a link to a quick article about that:
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

understood
but can't a photograph of a situation be misrepresented (just like statistics)?

like using a telephoto lens to make a 5 person group look like a mob
or misjudging what is actually going on to be something that is not going on via prejudice / bias...

it is like watching people sitting at a table at a café and inventing "backstories" for them
not saying surveillance photographs that stop criminals aren't reality but
sometimes there's other stuff going on ...

its not difficult to create alternate facts to support photographs or video to create a reality that doesn't exist...

I'm referring basically to cloning and removals. If what's seen on the viewfinder is captured and shown on the final print with minimal adjustments only to correct for exposure, then you have a truthful photo. Also, you can;t blame an honest photo if the editor misrepresents what it shows. That's on the editor. I think we know what truthful and what isn't.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The judge has no way of knowing if a photo or video has been edited if the edit was done well, and no one admits to it.

...

The photographer who took the picture would have to perjure himself under penalty of committing a felony when he is asked if the photo was edited and how if it was and then lied about what he did. There are rules of discovery and submittal of evidence that have to be followed. Photos just don't pop up at a trial. Lawyers can help here but I think photos are hearsay evidence that have to be interrogated by their takers how they got there, how they were taken, if they were edited, etc. Otherwise the judge won't allow them in as evidence.

 

[MattKing]

A photo isn't normally hearsay evidence. It is demonstrative evidence - you use it to support evidence given by a witness. The witness attests to the fact that the photo is an accurate representation of what they observed first hand.
The exceptions include things like traffic cameras, which record events where human witnesses are unavailable. It is in those situations that you need evidence about the technical realities of the photos.

 

[markjwyatt]

A photograph is not reality. It is a 2D representation/interpretation of some recognizable visual aspects of human experience.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

A photo isn't normally hearsay evidence. It is demonstrative evidence - you use it to support evidence given by a witness. The witness attests to the fact that the photo is an accurate representation of what they observed first hand.
The exceptions include things like traffic cameras, which record events where human witnesses are unavailable. It is in those situations that you need evidence about the technical realities of the photos.

Exactly. The witness attests that he photoshopped it by changing through cloning in artifacts and the photo would either be not allowed or disregarded by the jury. However, if the witness said that he just brightened the picture because it was too dark through under exposure, it's apparent truth would be more compelling to the jury. Also, it's truthfulness would not be much effected by being BW or in color. Juries understand the truthful nature of BW pictures just as well as we knowledgeable photographers. Of course, photos and videos cannot catch the scene as well as our eyes. The issue when cops shooting victims and using the videos of bystanders has shown how difficult it can be to interpret the videos. But if anyone played with the video in any way, it would not have any value at trial as it would be totally untruthful.

 

[MattKing]

Exactly. The witness attests that he photoshopped it by changing through cloning in artifacts and the photo would either be not allowed or disregarded by the jury. However, if the witness said that he just brightened the picture because it was too dark through under exposure, it's apparent truth would be more compelling to the jury. Also, it's truthfulness would not be much effected by being BW or in color. Juries understand the truthful nature of BW pictures just as well as we knowledgeable photographers. Of course, photos and videos cannot catch the scene as well as our eyes. The issue when cops shooting victims and using the videos of bystanders has shown how difficult it can be to interpret the videos. But if anyone played with the video in any way, it would not have any value at trial as it would be totally untruthful.

Actually, the photo isn't the most important evidence. The most important evidence is the testimony of the witness. The photo is demonstrative - it serves the same role as a diagram or a sketch - and is used to clarify and enhance the probitive evidence provided by the witness.
If you don't have someone to say that the photo accurately depicts what a witness saw, then that photo is inadmissible.
As I posted earlier, there are exceptions for things like traffic and surveillance cameras, but those exceptions depend on special statutory rules, and people being available to testify about the reliability about those sources.
To repeat - unless there is someone available to testify about what they actually saw (and whether a photo accurately portrays that) then evidence about whether or not a photo has been manipulated isn't relevant, because the photo can't be used anyway.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Actually, the photo isn't the most important evidence. The most important evidence is the testimony of the witness. The photo is demonstrative - it serves the same role as a diagram or a sketch - and is used to clarify and enhance the probitive evidence provided by the witness.
If you don't have someone to say that the photo accurately depicts what a witness saw, then that photo is inadmissible.
As I posted earlier, there are exceptions for things like traffic and surveillance cameras, but those exceptions depend on special statutory rules, and people being available to testify about the reliability about those sources.
To repeat - unless there is someone available to testify about what they actually saw (and whether a photo accurately portrays that) then evidence about whether or not a photo has been manipulated isn't relevant, because the photo can't be used anyway.

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.

Getting back to the original point, there are truthful photos that have not been manipulated and untruthful photos that have. Arguing that all photos are untruthful is not accurate.

 

[Dali]

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.