What aspects of a photograph do we take for granted?

Discussion in 'Ethics and Philosophy' started by Saganich, Feb 28, 2009.

  1. Saganich

    Saganich Subscriber

    Messages:
    639
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Shooter:
    35mm
    What aspects of a photograph do we take for granted? Do any of them differ from a painting? For example in a movie it is taken for granted that there is a moving image, a photograph that the image is not moving as it is with a painting.
     
  2. clayne

    clayne Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The fact that we're even able to accurately reproduce a visual scene after the fact?
     
  3. hoffy

    hoffy Member

    Messages:
    2,578
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Location:
    Adelaide, Au
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Interesting topic to bring up on an Analog photography forum! If this was a digital place, the simple answer would be "every last aspect"(or that at least would be the trend, with so many cheap devices being able to take an instant snapshot of the world around us, which is immediately viewable).

    But posing the question here, the answer isn't so easy.

    I think that what we take for granted that we can record a certain point of time, exactly as it appeared before our eyes to be viewed later or at any time. I think we take it for granted that exactly what appeared in front of us at that time is what we see in a photograph.....or is it?
     
  4. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    22,874
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    paswonquitte
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Groups:
    the only think we take for granted is that the medium is reactive to light.
    other than that "anything goes".

    photographs do not need negatives made by cameras, they do not need to reproduce anything, really ..
    like painting just requires paint of some sort ... photography just draws with light ..
     
  5. clayne

    clayne Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The analogy is not the same - as our eyes also see with light.
     
  6. Allen Friday

    Allen Friday Member

    Messages:
    883
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    I agree, in part, with jnanian here. Photographs are reactive to light. I would add, however, the time element. Photographic materials are reactive to light over time. This time element is what distinguishes it from the eye. The eye sees things at about 1/60th of a second. Photography records things from a few thousands of a second to multi-year long exposures. This time element, combined with the action of light, allows photography to be unique.

    The eye can see a horse running. Photography can freeze the animal so we can see that all four legs are off the ground at the same time. A long exposure allows blur, which cannot be seen by the eye.

    Photographs do not need to be of any tangilble thing. The subject can be light. For example, take a flashlight and turn it on and off rapidly at varying distances from a sheet of photo paper while moving it around. You will end up with cirlces of light of varying size and brightness, some of which will over lap. The subject of the photo is light, and can only be seen as a photograph. The eye will see each circle of light as the flashlight is turned on. But the accumulation of the cirlces can only be seen once the paper is developed.
     
  7. mjs

    mjs Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Location:
    Elkhart, Ind
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Veracity.
     
  8. clayne

    clayne Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Is not absolute.
     
  9. keithwms

    keithwms Member

    Messages:
    6,255
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Location:
    Charlottesvi
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That someone else will ever really see it.
     
  10. jasonhall

    jasonhall Member

    Messages:
    175
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    For me personally....it would have to be not the photo its self....but rather the work and efforts of the people before me that created and perfected, not only the science, but the art of creating the photograph. Think of not only what the film and paper can produce with the camera and lens, but also consider the efforts in creating these tools. Its not so much the tools that take I take for granted, but the people who developed it over the years from the days of the camera obscura (Sp?).

    In my mind the fim and paper only does what it does naturally(react to light). I mean I have seen people take photos with live growing green grass.

    Just my thoughts

    Jason
     
  11. jasonhall

    jasonhall Member

    Messages:
    175
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Shooter:
    Medium Format