Makers or Takers

[pentaxuser]

Of course...all pictures are such pictures and we all take them. What differs is the picture taker/maker.

Your above quote was, I take it, in reference to my question asking whether others do not take similar pictures to the one I described In that respect can you expand on what you said

What you seem to be saying is that we all take "real "pictures but what differs is the taker. This puzzles me. It you were there taking Uncle Harry's picture in Blackpool at my shoulder or just behind me then what your viewfinder shows you is essentially the same as mine shows me, isn't it ?

pentaxuser

 

[cliveh]

Where do I fit into this?
I am an arty farty type that paints with light.

You don't, buzz off.

 

[Vaughn]

Your above quote was, I take it, in reference to my question asking whether others do not take similar pictures to the one I described In that respect can you expand on what you said

What you seem to be saying is that we all take "real "pictures but what differs is the taker. This puzzles me. It you were there taking Uncle Harry's picture in Blackpool at my shoulder or just behind me then what your viewfinder shows you is essentially the same as mine shows me, isn't it ?

pentaxuser

I place importance on the fact that there are two separate images being made...perhaps your sentimental urban environmental portrait of your Uncle Harry -- and my inclusion of the porn shop sign which you had carefully excluded, then printed dark and grainy, leading the viewer to make a connection between the sign and the blurred (1/15th sec) barely reconizable figure of Uncle Harry.

 

[BrianShaw]

If you were there taking Uncle Harry's picture in Blackpool at my shoulder or just behind me then what your viewfinder shows you is essentially the same as mine shows me, isn't it ?

pentaxuser

Possibly, or possibly not. You may have taken the picture of Uncle Harry with the cigar in his mouth, looking like George Burns. I may have taken the picture of Uncle Harry when he held the cigar down, looking more like Winston. Or did I get George and Winston backwards? No matter, same Uncle Harry and same cigar, and same Blackpool; different pictures.

BTW, how is Uncle Harry. Please give him kind regards from me!

 

[Vaughn]

Where do I fit into this?
I am an arty farty type that paints with light.

Make what you can.
Take what you can get for it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As far as I am aware all my photos represent what was there in front of me and in the viewfinder at the moment I took them When I have finished processing the print it does seem to look the same as what was on the negative which in turn represented what I saw in the viewfinder

When I took a picture of Uncle Harry on a deckchair on the beach at Blackpool with a knotted handkerchief on his head for protection from the sun and the large tower about half the size of the Eiffel Tower in the background, the picture looked just like I remembered it a few weeks before when I took it and it still does today

Do others not take such pictures?

pentaxuser

Well, Uncle Harry is not in any of my pictures.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The NY Times has an interest in truth-telling especially with news and documentary photos. They seem to have no problem describing it. I highlighted in red that criteria.

1. Technical Requirements (Submission Standards)​

If you are asked to submit files (e.g., after a successful pitch or for an award entry), the following technical standards typically apply:

• Format: JPEG only.
• Color Profile: RGB.
• Size: Maximum of 3600 pixels on the longest side (equivalent to 18 inches at 200 dpi).
• Metadata: Images must include complete IPTC fields, including:
  
  • Caption (detailed and accurate)
  • Byline (your name)
  • Credit (your organization or "Freelance")
• Integrity: For news photography, you must provide original, unedited camera files (RAW or un-toned JPEGs) alongside your final versions to verify that no manipulation has occurred beyond standard cropping and toning.

2. Ethical Standards (The "Golden Rules")​

The Times has a zero-tolerance policy for photo manipulation in news and documentary contexts.

• No Manipulation: You cannot add, move, or remove any element of the original image.
• No Multiple Exposures: These are generally prohibited for news and feature reporting.
• AI Usage: The use of generative AI or AI-based "editing" that alters the content of the image is strictly forbidden and can lead to a permanent ban from the publication.
• Truth in Captions: Captions must be factual, verified, and provide proper context.

 

[cliveh]

The NY Times has an interest in truth-telling especially with news and documentary photos. They seem to have no problem describing it. I highlighted in red that criteria.

1. Technical Requirements (Submission Standards)​

If you are asked to submit files (e.g., after a successful pitch or for an award entry), the following technical standards typically apply:

• Format: JPEG only.
• Color Profile: RGB.
• Size: Maximum of 3600 pixels on the longest side (equivalent to 18 inches at 200 dpi).
• Metadata: Images must include complete IPTC fields, including:
  
  • Caption (detailed and accurate)
  • Byline (your name)
  • Credit (your organization or "Freelance")
• Integrity: For news photography, you must provide original, unedited camera files (RAW or un-toned JPEGs) alongside your final versions to verify that no manipulation has occurred beyond standard cropping and toning.

2. Ethical Standards (The "Golden Rules")​

The Times has a zero-tolerance policy for photo manipulation in news and documentary contexts.

• No Manipulation: You cannot add, move, or remove any element of the original image.
• No Multiple Exposures: These are generally prohibited for news and feature reporting.
• AI Usage: The use of generative AI or AI-based "editing" that alters the content of the image is strictly forbidden and can lead to a permanent ban from the publication.
• Truth in Captions: Captions must be factual, verified, and provide proper context.

Thanks for that, as it's good to know there are publications out there who value photographic recording without manipulation.

 

[pentaxuser]

I place importance on the fact that there are two separate images being made...perhaps your sentimental urban environmental portrait of your Uncle Harry -- and my inclusion of the porn shop sign which you had carefully excluded, then printed dark and grainy, leading the viewer to make a connection between the sign and the blurred (1/15th sec) barely reconizable figure of Uncle Harry.

You've completely lost me again but never mind It may be that I don't fit into this kind of a discussion either so I'll take the advice given to another participant and buzz off

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

BTW, how is Uncle Harry. Please give him kind regards from me!

Alas long since gone like saucy postcards, the end of rationing and end-of-the-pier comedians telling jokes about mother-in-laws while holiday makers supped pints of dark mild ale and had fish and chips on the way home

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

You don't, buzz off.

I actually laughed at that. Good one, Clive.

 

[Don_ih]

You've completely lost me again

I think @Vaughn was referencing the fact that there can be many different recordings of the same reality and each will be subject to a potentially different interpretation.

 

[Don_ih]

Truthfully, hardly any of us here really do much manipulation of the content of photos. But everything else we do manipulates how that content is presented - starting from seeing something (instead of something else) in the first place.

 

[MattKing]

As far as I am aware all my photos represent what was there in front of me and in the viewfinder at the moment I took them When I have finished processing the print it does seem to look the same as what was on the negative which in turn represented what I saw in the viewfinder

When I took a picture of Uncle Harry on a deckchair on the beach at Blackpool with a knotted handkerchief on his head for protection from the sun and the large tower about half the size of the Eiffel Tower in the background, the picture looked just like I remembered it a few weeks before when I took it and it still does today

Do others not take such pictures?

pentaxuser

The critical words in your post are "represent", "does seem to look the same", "represented" and "looked just like I remembered".
There are fundamental differences between that which is identical to reality, and that which is a facsimile of reality.
Whether or not a facsimile is a close approximation of what was reality, or a distant approximation of what was reality, is a characteristic of both the art you create and the way you experience the visual world.
If @cliveh is actually saying that he values art that gets as close to an accurate representation to what actually was, subject to the constraints of a two dimensional medium that only renders tonal arrangements, and deletes almost all colour information, then that is a totally understandable and justifiable and defensable preference.
But it is a mistake to equate that which is real with that which tries to look real.
Even if the way that something tries to look real actually reveals more about what may be behind the reality than that which may be easily obtained.
As an example, one of my favorite portraits of all time: Jane Bown's "Samuel Beckett":

 

[cliveh]

If @cliveh is actually saying that he values art that gets as close to an accurate representation to what actually was, subject to the constraints of a two dimensional medium that only renders tonal arrangements, and deletes almost all colour information, then that is a totally understandable and justifiable and defensable preference.

Thanks Matt, that is what I was trying to say.

 

[Vaughn]

I think @Vaughn was referencing the fact that there can be many different recordings of the same reality and each will be subject to a potentially different interpretation.

Exactly. And I'll go further and add that every brain will experience and see reality through its own unique set of colored glasses. Part of my reality was raising a set of triplet boys and including them into my photographic work. Ever since I see reality through prism glasses that seem to isolate forms into groups of three. Makes me chuckle at times...since I draw a very rough (and small) sketch of each scene in my field notes, the groups of 3 get noticed, and sometimes I find them later on the light table.

Boys, Scotia, CA. An experiment with x-ray film, 8x10, pt/pd

 

[reddesert]

As far as I am aware all my photos represent what was there in front of me and in the viewfinder at the moment I took them When I have finished processing the print it does seem to look the same as what was on the negative which in turn represented what I saw in the viewfinder

When I took a picture of Uncle Harry on a deckchair on the beach at Blackpool with a knotted handkerchief on his head for protection from the sun and the large tower about half the size of the Eiffel Tower in the background, the picture looked just like I remembered it a few weeks before when I took it and it still does today

Do others not take such pictures?

Generally, making any photograph involves representational choices. The photographer, wittingly or not, chooses the framing, what to include or exclude in the image, the focus point, the representation of light and dark values, the use of color or black and white, the mapping of "true" color into the color palette of the photograph, the effect of grain. Even the capturing of an instant in time is a representational choice, since we don't perceive in stop motion. You can see an effect of that whenever you see a still picture, even a family snap, of someone caught in mid-grimace or mid-laugh, where the subject says it doesn't fairly look like they "really look."

Different photographers have different goals of making more or less distorted versions of visual reality, and journalists are supposed not to mislead, but even a journalistic still photograph only captures a partial view of what was visible at any one time.

This is more or less Philosophy of Art 101, so when an experienced photographer says that they make literal representations of reality while other unnamed people warp it, it gives the impression that they are either kidding themselves or trying to start an argument.

 

[Milpool]

Probably. These also tend to be fairly haphazardly constructed philosophies. More like irksome “artist statements”.

This is more or less Philosophy of Art 101, so when an experienced photographer says that they make literal representations of reality while other unnamed people warp it, it gives the impression that they are either kidding themselves or trying to start an argument.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Generally, making any photograph involves representational choices. The photographer, wittingly or not, chooses the framing, what to include or exclude in the image, the focus point, the representation of light and dark values, the use of color or black and white, the mapping of "true" color into the color palette of the photograph, the effect of grain. Even the capturing of an instant in time is a representational choice, since we don't perceive in stop motion. You can see an effect of that whenever you see a still picture, even a family snap, of someone caught in mid-grimace or mid-laugh, where the subject says it doesn't fairly look like they "really look."

Different photographers have different goals of making more or less distorted versions of visual reality, and journalists are supposed not to mislead, but even a journalistic still photograph only captures a partial view of what was visible at any one time.

This is more or less Philosophy of Art 101, so when an experienced photographer says that they make literal representations of reality while other unnamed people warp it, it gives the impression that they are either kidding themselves or trying to start an argument.

The photographer can indeed bias the shot based on time of day, where he stands, angle, etc. But the camera sensor or film are still recording a true reality. Adding and subtracting parts or swapping parts of multiple photos changes that reality significantly, especially in news and documentary photographs.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think @Vaughn was referencing the fact that there can be many different recordings of the same reality and each will be subject to a potentially different interpretation.

Yes I gathered that but could not see how that affects the definition of real. Vaughn might well decide to include or exclude other elements in his picture of Uncle Harry and if both reflect what was actually there when he took it then either picture was real

I posted as I did because it seemed to me that the discussion about what is reality or not was getting close to the "philosophical" one about how many angels can alight in the head of a needle at the same time

pentaxuser

 

[Vaughn]

Yes I gathered that but could not see how that affects the definition of real. Vaughn might well decide to include or exclude other elements in his picture of Uncle Harry and if both reflect what was actually there when he took it then either picture was real

...

pentaxuser

While a negative and a photographic print can be real, I question considering a picture (an image as a mental construct) as 'real'. Are thoughts and mental images real? What you may be referring to is how well the image/picture matches both one's perceived reality of the time/place and one's memory of that time/place.

If I were to be behind you to snap a photo of your uncle, we still would be recording two different interpretations of the reality before us. If I photoshopped a porn shop sign into the image, it still would be an interpretation of the reality that was before us. I hold that both interpretations are not 'real'. And having one being more or less real than the other would be like being more or less pregnant. Either one is, or is not.

In the redwoods I often will lay a branch over the sword ferns in front of the camera to get them out of the image's foreground (fronds can be 6+ feet long). I consider those images to be just as 'real' as those I do not move the ferns out of the way.

 

[cliveh]

In the redwoods I often will lay a branch over the sword ferns in front of the camera to get them out of the image's foreground (fronds can be 6+ feet long). I consider those images to be just as 'real' as those I do not move the ferns out of the way.

But Atget would not do that, he would leave the ferns standing. Perhaps you should try it?

 

[Vaughn]

But Atget would not do that, he would leave the ferns standing. Perhaps you should try it?

I do not believe Atget has ever photographed in a temperate rainforest. I am a foot taller than he was, so he would have had a little more of an issue since the ferns can be as taller as he is. What a sight that would have been -- only the camera on the tripod over his shoulder would be visible waving above the ferns as he made his way through them!

I've been photographing in the redwoods for almost 50 years...I have photographed ferns from both sides now, both up and down, and still somehow, it's fern illusions I recall. I really don't know ferns at all.

 

[cliveh]

I do not believe Atget has ever photographed in a temperate rainforest. I am a foot taller than he was, so he would have had a little more of an issue since the ferns can be as taller as he is. What a sight that would have been -- only the camera on the tripod over his shoulder would be visible waving above the ferns as he made his way through them!

I've been photographing in the redwoods for almost 50 years...I have photographed ferns from both sides now, both up and down, and still somehow, it's fern illusions I recall. I really don't know ferns at all.

Vaughn, Joni Mitchell would be proud of you and after 50 years I'm sure you know what you are doing. Please ignore my previous post.

 

[Don_ih]

But Atget would not do that

Frankly, no one can say with authority what Atget would or would not do. And he's dead, so he can't say, either.

I posted as I did because it seemed to me that the discussion about what is reality or not was getting close to the "philosophical" one about how many angels can alight in the head of a needle at the same time

I don't see it. The question of angels is not philosophical at all (it's just bullshit). This question here isn't particularly complex. Any "recording" is a recording of something else. And that recording is only what is available to be recorded, by the person recording it (wherever that person is is fixed), with whatever instrumentation is available. That's a lot of conditions to result in something that is making a truth claim (more significant would be a claim of what was not true).