What aspects of a photograph do we take for granted?

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.

The fact that we're even able to accurately reproduce a visual scene after the fact?

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?

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 ..

jnanian said:

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 ..

Click to expand...

The analogy is not the same - as our eyes also see with light.

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.

Veracity.

Is not absolute.

Saganich said:

What aspects of a photograph do we take for granted?

Click to expand...

That someone else will ever really see it.

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

Below are a few links to the Grass photos....for those who may be wondering.

http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/07/09/grass-art-displays-at-wimbledon/

http://itotd.com/articles/252/grass-photographs/