Explain the color purple to a person who's been blind since birth.
I have owned five dogs, all of whom lived long lives, but not one of them showed any interest in photography other than stopping moving to pose when they saw a camera aimed at them. I would be interested in seeing your dogs' photographic work. Please share.
My dog doesn't do photography. She's into literature.
Moses did not drop the tablets according to the story. Just sayin'. What that has to do with the death of straight photography is anyone's guess.
You use analogies that are suited to that person's available senses - to touch, taste, smell or sound.
So how would you explain the color purple?
As long as it's good wine and you get to drink it.I think wine analogies might be useful. You would need to have a two way conversation, and build the analogy based on the exchange.
I think wine analogies might be useful. You would need to have a two way conversation, and build the analogy based on the exchange.
I disagree entirely. It's all there in B&W. If you don't see it you are missing something, no explanation needed. That really is the point of photography IMHO.There are a couple of flies in that ointment. The profoundly informed ideas are in RA's head, and the only way you will know about RA's profoundly informed ideas, which may or may not be profound, is if he tells you about them, and if what he tells you about them is true, and not just a ruse to get a grant.
White wine?
"What the eyes see."
FWIW...Eyes do not see. The brain does that. Eyes just supply the electric impulses caused be the interaction of light with the retina (with some auto focus and exposure controls). And the brain is the grand manipulator of images!
Figure of speech.
So long as it was ‘straight’ Scotch.
I disagree entirely. It's all there in B&W. If you don't see it you are missing something, no explanation needed. That really is the point of photography IMHO.
People (me included) are in the habit of equating how the lens/camera 'sees' with how our eyes/brain sees. Few things are further from the truth, to put it straight.
Just suggesting that "straight" photography is impossible since we do not see "straight". And, of course, neither does the camera. As someone pointed out -- the terminology is all screwed up, so thus the discussion..
Was just watching an episode of CSI Miami. The hot blond says: she's dead. Lieutenant Horatio replies: are you sure about that?
Nothing like using the defined word in the definition to add clarity."Seeing" is an experience that involves a person and something seen.
Or maybe "straight" photography is an aesthetic rather than a rulebook. One difficulty you encounter by using the rulebook model is that we are now 422 posts into the discussion and there is significant disagreement about the rules."Straight" photography is just a description of how one ends up with the image.
All you do by making such statements is shut down the conversation.
Now, there have been some things said above about what "see" means. What you are offering is a physical description of how "seeing" occurs. It's the equivalent of saying, while watching Star Trek (as someone mentioned that above), you're not watching a television show, you're watching coloured rectangles flicker on a screen. Oh, but then you're not "watching" at all, because that's just some uncontrollable electrical impulses occurring in the depths of your brain brought about by ... by .... by what, exactly? If you can't discern an independent reality from your experience of it, you have slipped into solipsism. Maybe you like it there.
"To see" means, and will continue to mean, what it meant before there was the available biological description of the event. "Seeing" is an experience that involves a person and something seen. That is what the biological description seeks to describe. If you attempt to eliminate the actuality of the experience being described by replacing it with a description of how that experience comes to be, you destroy the implicit link between the person and the thing experienced.
It's like "I've been stabbed." But how you want it, "Electrical impulses..." No amount of nattering on about electrical impulses will deal with the practical reality of having a knife shoved in one's chest. But, if you look down, you might see it there.
"Straight" photography is just a description of how one ends up with the image. That it involved no extra destructive or additive steps from bringing whatever the camera recorded to the final presentation of that image. It's incredibly plain and simple to understand. It's like "I'm drinking straight vodka" where that means it was poured from the bottle, into a glass, no ice, no water, no vermouth, no orange juice - just the crap that came out of the bottle, into the glass, down the hatch.
Try it. You might enjoy the electrical impulses.
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?