# An essay on Photography and Perception of Images



## D-B-J (Jan 12, 2011)

The Use of Light​Click.  The shutter opens, and I sidle a few feet away from the camera, nestled in-between two trees on a tripod.  I set the camera on a self-timer so I will not shake the cameraI silently wait for the thirty seconds of exposure to eclipse, all the while enjoying the serenity of the water rushing by.  The sun is setting, and I softly close my eyes for a few seconds.  Click. The shutter closes, and the thirty seconds have elapsed. I glance at the rear LCD of the camera for some indication that my picture has succeeded, and it has.  Clutching the zoom ring, zooming in slightly to recompose my image, changing the aperture and ISO setting, I press the shutter.  Beep, beep, beep, click.  The shutter opens again, for the forty-fifth exposure that night, and I lean back against a fallen maple tree.  
In the woods behind my grandmothers house in Mainein the past week, it has rained over 5 inches.  I have been out in the woods with my prized DSLR for the past three hours, and will remain until it is too dark to work outside.  Click.  The sound of the shutters closing brings me back to reality; this time the exposure was only twenty seconds, but the picture is the best of the night.  I quickly decide to take a few more before heading in.  As the slight breeze flows around me, I wrap a towel around the cameras battery so it will not die from the cold.   
Intuitively changing settings and capturing images, I ponder the art of photography.  It is one of the simplest arts, and yet the hardest.  There is only one aspect that can, in effect, create an effective imagelight.  A beautiful scene is impossible to reproduce without good lighting.  Picking up my head and gazing at the forest surrounding me, I am in awe of its simplistic beauty.  The brook is three inches higher than normal, and makes for some stunning shots.
Reluctantly, I finally admit to myself that it is too dark to take any more picturesI unscrew my camera from the tripod, nestle it into my camera-bag, and grudgingly set off for home.  Well, my second home at least.  As I walk through the door, my grandmother exclaims, I thought you got eaten by a bear!  And I reply, No Meme, I was taking pictures.  You should know me by now.
The next day, the entire family comes for supper, and I display the images taken the previous day on the TV.  As my family gazes, I glance at their facessmiles all around; as I am about to shut my eyes, I quietly say to myself, I knew there was a reason I loved photography.     
 By taking a picture I automatically change or completely remove the context of the photowith each re-composition, I remove certain aspects of the surroundings, such as the fallen tree on the left that encroached upon the upper left corner of the frame.  It was not until I read John Bergers essay that I realized how easy it is to alter an image from the actual subject.  The stream in my grandmothers backyard is not ideal; it is not an awe-inspiring river that is perfect to photograph.  There are fallen trees, rotting leaves, sometimes less-than-desirable water levels.  But with each shot, I tweak the position of the camera, the focal length of the lens, and the length of the shutter to squeeze every ounce of beauty out of the scene in front of me.  What is worse than the alteration of context, is the amount of editing afterward.  A great majority of the photos today are edited; whether in adobe Photoshop or other programs, the photo is altered even more.  The context is changed once again.  The context is altered to satisfy the artists bias:  the proper amount of contrast, a vignette possibly, or even adding clarity, all to please the photographer.  The point is many photos are an idealistic view of the subject, not an honest view.  And the consumers, those who believe that the daily mass of photos which bombards them is an accurate representation of the scene only adds to the confusion of the presentation of the original subject.  They forget to realize truly how much editing goes into some photos, thus lacking the critical thinking skill of being able to distinguish fantasy from actuality.   

Regards,
Jake


----------



## Overread (Jan 12, 2011)

D-B-J said:


> A great majority of the photos today are edited



Photography has always been a 2 part process of capture and edit/process. Film photography needs processing to give you a working negative and then a print - digital photography needs processing from the RAW to give you a usable image to print and display.

This revelation that "photography is edited" has only come around recently because people have come to understand (in a very limited manner) part of what happens during the photographic process. As with any such revelation of understanding it is full of hearsay - misunderstanding and over exaggerations.

In addition to your point that photography is always a select view of the world and thus can never be true this is only partly true. Take two people and put them in the same place - viewing the same scene and ask them what they see and you'll get two slightly similar but different answers; just as if you have two people go through the same experience they will each pick up on different points - and they are also able to totally lie and exaggerate just as much or as little as a photographer can in a darkroom. 

Thus its not so much photography that you have to believe or disbelieve but the integrity of the person reporting through the use of the camera (or with voice or writing or any other means of communication)


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 12, 2011)

Overread said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > A great majority of the photos today are edited
> ...


 

But there will still be the bias of the photographer, regardless of their integrity.


----------



## Overread (Jan 12, 2011)

Yes but that is the same for anything - a bias of a reporter - a painter - a videographer etc....

Each can be subject to being highly truthful and highly bias


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 12, 2011)

Overread said:


> Yes but that is the same for anything - a bias of a reporter - a painter - a videographer etc....
> 
> Each can be subject to being highly truthful and highly bias


 
But doesnt having a bias immediately lower the "truth" or "accuracy?"


----------



## KmH (Jan 12, 2011)

*Every photograph ever made* has been edited, not just a majority of them.

The real world has 3 dimensions, a photograph only has 2.


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 12, 2011)

KmH said:


> *Every photograph ever made* has been edited, not just a majority of them.
> 
> The real world has 3 dimensions, a photograph only has 2.


 
Not EVERY photograph is edited.  There are those who still refusee to edit, and shoot raw, so there is technically no editing.  I myself have posted unedited raw.  So i cannot make such a general statement and say EVERY photograph is edited.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 12, 2011)

A nice bit of writing Jake. Thanks for posting that here.


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 12, 2011)

Derrel said:


> A nice bit of writing Jake. Thanks for posting that here.


 

Very welcome.  This was for an essay about perception for my AP english class, after we read two essays, one by John Berger, and one by Walker Percy.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 12, 2011)

D-B-J said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > *Every photograph ever made* has been edited, not just a majority of them.
> ...



If you shoot jpeg or convert your image to jpeg there is editing being done when the camera or software applies it's presets. 
Also, I'd like to know how you are posting and printing RAW images. 
 What about landscape photogs who use a variety of filters to alter or enhance the colors of a scene?  Making the trees greener, the sunsets more dramatic and the water softer?  I'm yet to approach a stream where the water looked like cotton candy yet I can make it happen with may camera. 
Also, there is no such thing as "unbiasesd".  Ultimately more "bias" is introduced when the shot is framed than when the photo is edited.  More times than I can count I've seen news shooters and film crews make small crowds look like large gatherings when it served their purpose to make the event look popular, it is simply a matter of framing and perspective. 
Event photogs make bands look good even if the crowd ultimately hated it.  You introduce bias in the way you frame your subject in the same way a reporter introduces bias in the way he frames a discussion.  I guess my big question is what's so wrong with editing in the first place?


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 12, 2011)

Scatterbrained said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...


 

I never said editing is a bad thing.  The purpose of this essay was to present to the reader how there is no such thing as a pure and true representation of the world.  Thats all.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 12, 2011)

D-B-J said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > D-B-J said:
> ...


true, but this statement creates a tone that implies negativity towards editing photos due to how it alters the scene. 


> What is worse than the alteration of context, is the amount of editing afterward


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 12, 2011)

Scatterbrained said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > Scatterbrained said:
> ...


 

Because it takes it farther from reality.  

"The point is many photos are an idealistic view of the subject, not an honest view. And the consumers, those who believe that the daily mass of photos which bombards them is an accurate representation of the scene only adds to the confusion of the presentation of the original subject. They forget to realize truly how much editing goes into some photos, thus lacking the critical thinking skill of being able to distinguish fantasy from actuality."

Thats what i am getting at.  That people need to realize there is no such this as an honest representation of reality.  I'm not saying i have anything against editing, cause i don't.  This essay's goal was to show those who are unaware.  That's all.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 12, 2011)

D-B-J said:


> ...... people need to realize there is no such this as an honest representation of reality.  I'm not saying i have anything against editing, cause i don't.  This essay's goal was to show those who are unaware.  That's all.


HA! People still believe politicians are honest and their teenage daughters are celibate, I'd say you've got an uphill battle ahead.


----------



## Overread (Jan 12, 2011)

D-B-J said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > D-B-J said:
> ...



Does it? Careful with how you portray and view editing. One can use editing to correct things such as the white balance; adding light to dark sections and reducing the glare of brighter areas (as examples).
Are these things taking it further from reality or instead bringing it closer to reality by repairing limitations of the cameras automatic white balance setting and changing the brightness of sections so that one can "see" in the photo what was more correctly seen with the naked eye (the eye having both a far greater dynamic range and the ability to adapt quickly to brighter and darker areas of a scene so as to give the impression that one can see the whole in a single viewing)). 

In short you're presenting editing in the light that many come to view it - that of taking things further away from the truth. As if the naked capture from the camera is somehow always more truthful than it is after the result has been edited/processed.


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 13, 2011)

Overread said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > Scatterbrained said:
> ...


 

interesting point.  again im talking about most, not all.  adding contrast is often done.  thats not bringing it closer to the truth, is it?


----------



## Overread (Jan 13, 2011)

D-B-J said:


> [
> 
> interesting point.  again im talking about most, not all.  adding contrast is often done.  thats not bringing it closer to the truth, is it?



Depends how you define the "Truth". Some define it as the unedited RAW output of the camera. However that viewpoint ignores the fact that the camera cannot "see" perfectly. Even such things as contrast can be misrepresented in the RAW photo output as compared to the natural original view.

And then we have to consider that our eyes will see things differently - each person has an adaptive vision and through experience/genetics and many other influences different people will "see" different true views. This is especially true for things like colour


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 13, 2011)

Just a thought for the OP, I have plenty of photos that have required extensive modifications in post to bring the image more inline with how I saw it.  The original point of HDR photography was to allow photographers to create images that more accurately reflected level of dynamic range the human eye sees. 
  Often times when making an exposure you must determine what is important as the camera simply can't properly expose everything.   In others you may choose to bias your exposure towards the background knowing you can bring the foreground back in post.  Is that taking an image "farther from the truth", or bringing it more in line with reality?


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 13, 2011)

Scatterbrained said:


> Just a thought for the OP, I have plenty of photos that have required extensive modifications in post to bring the image more inline with how I saw it. The original point of HDR photography was to allow photographers to create images that more accurately reflected level of dynamic range the human eye sees.
> Often times when making an exposure you must determine what is important as the camera simply can't properly expose everything. In others you may choose to bias your exposure towards the background knowing you can bring the foreground back in post. Is that taking an image "farther from the truth", or bringing it more in line with reality?


 
But you are focusing on editing. Editing it removes it farther from the true or honestly raw setting. Whats the first thing a photographer does before he/she takes the shot? Composes. The act of composing an image already alters the shot, and editing adds to the alteration. Viewpoint alters the shot, even before it is taken. Thats what i am getting at.

Edit:  Focal length alters the shot as well.


----------



## KmH (Jan 14, 2011)

D-B-J said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > *Every photograph ever made* has been edited, not just a majority of them.
> ...


Yes. Every photograph ever made has been edited.

Don't forget that pre-processing is also editing, and at a minimum the photographer and the lens pre-process every photo.


----------



## fwellers (Jan 14, 2011)

Personally I wouldn't even be into photography if all it did was faithfully reproduce what my eyes see.
Yea sometimes I want to do that,but I enjoy the attempt of adding an artistic touch , whether during capture or during post.

I think though, in line with your original post, the world should be aware ( especially these days with the power technology lends to editing ), that no picture can be trusted to be "real".  
Maybe some of them are, but they could just as easily be total photoshop.


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 14, 2011)

fwellers said:


> Personally I wouldn't even be into photography if all it did was faithfully reproduce what my eyes see.
> Yea sometimes I want to do that,but I enjoy the attempt of adding an artistic touch , whether during capture or during post.
> 
> I think though, in line with your original post, the world should be aware ( especially these days with the power technology lends to editing ), that no picture can be trusted to be "real".
> Maybe some of them are, but they could just as easily be total photoshop.


 

Thats what i wanted you all to get out if this.  I myself like adding an artistic touch.  People just need to be more "aware" of the amount of editing and processing images go through these days.


----------



## kkamin (Jan 25, 2011)

Photography has never been an objective medium and can never be.

Ever since the first photograph was captured in 1826, people have been making creative decisions in how they process the photograph.

Casting aside post-processing for a second, what makes you think the camera captures truth to begin with or anything close to it? A photograph is a series of dots on a piece of paper or illuminated leds on a monitor. Your brain interprets it as realistic, but if you hold a photograph next to the real scene they are *vastly* *different*.  Like Overread said, life is composed of 3 dimensions, photography uses only 2. It has no spatial depth. It is a flat piece of paper or a flat screen. Photographs find ways through lighting, composition and focus to create the illusion of depth--otherwise it becomes visually jumbled and hard to read.

And I will take it a step further and say that life is in 4 dimensions...time being the fourth. We never experience life in frozen moments. A photograph is a static moment, something that does not exist in real life. A photograph is a creative artifact. Imagine trying to photograph someone and trying to capture their 'truth'. Put your camera on burst mode and take a series of images. Which one is more 'true'? Some of the frames the subject might be blinking or have an awkward transitory expression of their face. Others might be blurry or super sharp. Which one is more real? ...none of them. A photograph is no more real than a painting on the level we are discussing.

At what camera height or angle is objective or true? Photographing your subject at eye level, ground level looking up or from a birds eye view will impart different meaning to the photograph. There is no objective angle.

A photograph is usually a rectangular object. My vision is not rectangular. I have a very small spot of focus with my vision and then everything softens and blurs to an amorphous shape. Photographs can be square, horizontal or vertical. My field of view is an organic, never static, constantly shifting mess.  

Why did you frame the shot the way you did? What is outside the rectangle. Why didn't you include that in the frame? You are deciding what you want in the picture and you are deciding what is 'true'? Who are you? God?

Like others have said. The camera and eye do not see in the same way. Look at some optical illusions and you will quickly see how our visual system is not objective. Study color theory and you will see how the relationships between colors are relative. Often people use post-production to bring the image closer to how they experienced the scene in reality. The camera is stupid. The human brain is not.

The camera is not an objective recording device. It is as much a subject tool as a paint brush or a writer's keyboard. Just because it imitates visual reality perhaps better than other mediums does not mean it close enough to reality to even introduce the word 'truth' or define levels of truth to a particular process.


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 25, 2011)

kkamin said:


> Photography has never been an objective medium and can never be.
> 
> Ever since the first photograph was captured in 1826, people have been making creative decisions in how they process the photograph.
> 
> ...


 
A little more indepth than i had planned to go with my essay, but i do like that you took the time to write that.  Thank you for your indepth point of view.

Regards,
Jake


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 25, 2011)

I for one understand where you are going with the essay.


----------

