Well, if I had to name all the things that are not truth, I am not going to bed tonight soon. You might have figured out by now that my point is that photographs are not essentially more or less truthful representations. That is the extent to which I am committed to say that they are not "true," in that they are not "the thing itself" like Bazin, Barthes, Sontag and so many others believed, and that they do not by default have more authority on claiming that they represent something that is real.
OT! OT! OT!
This thread is about photograph vs image, so where the heck did drawings come from? Are you saying that you can use drawings on digital images in PhotoShop and produce an image that is better that a photograph?What kind of mouse are you using?? :confused:
Interested readers want to know?
In the meantime how about sticking to the topic? This is not the Popular Photography site, you know. :rolleyes:
Steve
Given that photos are most often associate with truthfulness, unlike other kinds of images, I respond by boring everyone to tears with academic drivel hoping to convince them that in fact there are no fundamental, only accidental, differences in the way a photo and a drawing convey their information. Once everyone is sound asleep I will rob them of their souls and sell them to the devil, but not yet.
Ah, there is madness in your method!
Steve
I will only leave you your souls if the governments of the Earth can provide me with...... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
MWAHAHAHAHA!
...where the heck did drawings come from?
Cohen's and Meskin's yada-yada of laid-down images at work ... in my humble opinion, certainly not my expressed, epistemologically-justified belief, which would take another 20 pages, which would be silly.
I don't disagree.
I wasn't asking for everything else that is also != Truth, I am asking for any example of something else that is.
A telescope gives you an image that is true in all the senses we wish a photograph to be.
A telescope gives you an image that is true in all the senses we wish a photograph to be.
But the same could be said for the image in your camera's view finder. So is it the film or digi-sensor then that renders the true image as "untrue"?
As I said many times earlier in this discussion, the important difference between the telescope/viewfinder image and the photo is that the photo does not preserve the spatial relationship between yourself and your subject.
A telescope image is thus "transparent." It is "true" in the sense that it gives an extension of your vision, and is functionally equivalent to actual seeing of actual things. A photograph is not equivalent to an actual experience of the depicted thing, but the viewfinder vision is.
Perhaps "true" is not an appropriate term for this kind of discussion; the point is that the way we talk about "truth" in photography boils down to a notion of transparency as defined above.
And if I mount my camera to a telescope and shoot a frame - it is the image then "not transparent"? Is that because the film/sensor "saw" it rather than my eye?
I don't disagree that a "photograph" (as in a "print") may be "untrue". But why would an image captured by a lens seen by my retina and recorded by my brain be true - but the same image captured by a lens and seen by my retina and recorded on a frame of film or on a digital sensor be untrue?
....
The image in your retina varies accordingly when you move in space. The photo does not.
Huh?
We're talking about the retina being used in both scenarios through a viewfinder - the difference is only the recording medium (i.e. brain vs. film/sensor).
Why would the image recorded in the brain be true but the image on the film/sensor be untrue?
.....
No: a TV circuit is in fact analogous to a photograph, not to viewfinder vision. Why? Again, because when you move in space before the tv screen or if you move the TV receiver the information displayed on it does not change accordingly. Granted, if you have a camera-monitor setup in one block, then you have a kind of CCD telescope. But with normal broadcast TV that is not the case.
Are we getting anywhere or is this just mental masturbation?
:munch::munch::munch::munch::munch::munch::munch::munch:
Steve
Personally I don't care either way, but if you are chewing popcorn before people masturbating, well that's called watching porn...
I meant the cave. You meant Platos' Retreat which I never visited. I tried going to Plato's Retreat West in Hollywood, since it was across the street from where I was studying TV writing at the time -- they only allowed couples or single women to enter, so I convinced my friend Kim to accompany me (and actually it was a location of great interest from a lot of girls I knew at the time, who would say they wanted to go but would get bashful if you suggested that they actually do it, heh) -- but they turned us away for being too young to be in a bar, and they closed theri doors permanently long before I reached a more appropriate age & had to find my own personal Sodoms and Gomorrahs.Leaving aside Bjorke's Plato's Cave for a moment...
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?