# Opposing Conceptions of Photgraphy



## skieur (Jun 30, 2010)

The reason for the "heat" in some of the discussions seems to me to be different conceptions of the nature of photography.

Some seem to define photography as "capturing a moment in time" while implying that using filters, postprocessing etc. is distorting the accuracy of the "moment" and therefore somehow changing photography into creative design with no relationship to reality. Another way of expressing their view is: accurate content is more important than visual impact or photographic method.

Others see photography as creating a visually attractive/artistic image that emphasizes or makes a "statement": emotional or otherwise about some aspect of our world. Making us see things, we would not ordinarily see, or feel emotions that we might not ordinarily feel. Their view would be that the visual effect of the image is more important than depicting the reality in the original scene. To put it another way: A beautiful image is a beautiful image irrespective of how it was created and irrespective of the reality in the original scene. Filters, postprocessing, HDR, solarization, panoramas, etc. are all means to creating an image with visual impact and that is the objective.

Needless to say, the first side cannot communicate with the second side very well because their concepts of photography are so totally different.

skieur


----------



## white (Jun 30, 2010)

Do we need to drag Eddie Adams into this _again_?

I'm inclined to believe there are no truths in the photograph. It is purely what photographers choose to emphasize.


----------



## Alpha (Jun 30, 2010)

Right. My belief is that these "conceptions" are purely egoistic and that is precisely the reason one cannot communicate with the other. In my view, photography is only egoistic insofar as it requires intent to take a picture. Beyond that, I think it's OK to be egoistic- good, even, for some people. But conflating one's egoistic investment in the "art" with any notion of objectively describing what it _is_ is patent nonsense. I think that's self-evident.


----------



## skieur (Jun 30, 2010)

Alpha said:


> Right. My belief is that these "conceptions" are purely egoistic and that is precisely the reason one cannot communicate with the other. In my view, photography is only egoistic insofar as it requires intent to take a picture. Beyond that, I think it's OK to be egoistic- good, even, for some people. But conflating one's egoistic investment in the "art" with any notion of objectively describing what it _is_ is patent nonsense. I think that's self-evident.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 1, 2010)

Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?

But the saddest part of all is that these people don't seem to realise that all sides of the argument are wrong and the only true form of photography is the form that you yourself believe. 

This discussion appears on this forum every few months. It appeared here 4 years ago. It likely appeared here when TPF first was born. The discussion existed before digital cameras became widespread. It exists in "The Darkroom Handbook" published in 1981. It existed long before then when people were still painting colour onto their prints. 

We'll see this discussion again in 2 months time. It'll be brought up again next year, and in 100 years time when the human race can simply tweet or squirt or whatever the communication flavour of the year is, right between our own subconsciousness there'll be photographers looking like mental patients banging their head against the wall while shouting abuse at themselves (or so it'll look to passers by) simply because whoever is on the other end of the line simply doesn't get Photography.

We go nowhere as a collective species. 

And every photo will be tonemapped regardless if it's a HDR or not.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 1, 2010)

Like anything else, a photograph needs context to give it legs.  With out that it might as well be a rock.  Except that it's not heavy.

or round.

or hard really.

or mineral.

or..


----------



## table1349 (Jul 1, 2010)

*DANGER WILL ROBINSON - DANGER - DANGER!!!*

What it is Robot???

*I SENSE AND IMMENSE AMOUNT OF PHILOSOPHICAL BS HEADING IN OUR DIRECTION. * 

Oh, that's just Dr. Smith coming back from somewhere.  :lmao::lmao::lmao:



(Lost is space.  TV show from the 60's):mrgreen:


----------



## erichards (Jul 1, 2010)

IMHO The image reflected in a photograph is never anything more than a perspective and is always therefore 'tainted' by the photographer,(their experiences, mood, tastes, etc...), the 'proof' is in what is left out of the frame and what is captured, the amount of set up, lighting etc...
No image is a pure and non-distorted representation of that moment in time.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 1, 2010)

Ask any cop what happens when he interviews 5 witnesses at a crime scene. Every one will give a slightly different description of what they absolutely KNEW as the "truth". Photography is no different. Get 5 photogs to take the same shot and tell them to make the picture as true to life as possible and get back to me on how that worked out.

And there's this...


gryphonslair99 said:


> *DANGER WILL ROBINSON - DANGER - DANGER!!!*
> 
> What it is Robot???
> 
> ...


Dr. Smith! Take your hands off the boy!


----------



## supraman215 (Jul 1, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> *DANGER WILL ROBINSON - DANGER - DANGER!!!*
> 
> (Lost is space.  TV show from the 60's):mrgreen:



What are the 60's?


:lmao:


----------



## Garbz (Jul 1, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> (Lost is space.  TV show from the 60's):mrgreen:



Ha false! It's a movie from the late 90s


----------



## maris (Jul 1, 2010)

skieur said:


> The reason for the "heat" in some of the discussions seems to me to be different conceptions of the nature of photography.
> 
> Some seem to define photography as "capturing a moment in time" while implying that using filters, postprocessing etc. is distorting the accuracy of the "moment" and therefore somehow changing photography into creative design with no relationship to reality. Another way of expressing their view is: accurate content is more important than visual impact or photographic method.
> 
> ...



For thousands of years the basic workflow involved in making realistic  pictures of things has, at its core, stayed the same.

The first step is to have illuminated subject matter. 
Light from this subject matter is focussed as a real optical image on a  megapixel sensor. 
The megapixel sensor transduces the image into information that travels  as electrical pulses up a cable. 
The cable feeds the electrical pulses into a memory where they are  temporarily stored. 
The picture memory is sent to a processor where it may be modified,  perhaps stitched with other picture files, and given the HDR treatment.
The resulting picture file is prepared for output via a mark making  device which then place spots of paint or ink on a surface. 
The accumulation of spots form the picture.

People familiar with digital picture making will recognise the separate  roles of camera, computer, and printer in the short discourse above.

People familiar with painting and drawing will find the short discourse  just as familiar. The lens and megapixel sensor are of course the  artist's eye, the memory and processor are in a brain, and the  mark-making device is the artists arm, hand, and brush.

Digital picture making is a remarkable technical achievement in that it  mechanizes and makes easy what artists have been labouring at for  millennia. What practitioners of digital picture making haven't realised  is that they are fully legitimate participants in the grand artistic stream  that includes Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Vincent van Gogh, and  thousands of other luminaries! 

And then there is photography. I mean the art practiced by Louis  Daguerre, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, Diane Arbus, and millions of others  great and not so great. Here there is the same illuminated subject, a  lens, and a sensor but that is all. The sensor suffers chemical changes  and becomes the picture itself. There is no transducer, no signal, no  memory file, no data processor, and no mark-making device to make a  picture via painting by numbers.

Digital picture making and photography are radically different things  that become muddled with one another because the pictures they make can be  superficially similar.

That, I think, is the root cause of the  original poster's observations


----------



## Derrel (Jul 2, 2010)

Des Moines, Iowa, Sept. 29, 1872:
I think the only true photography uses wet plates, a wooden tripod, and a camera made entirely of wood,metal,and leather. These young whippersnappers shooting on dry plates with their fancy 1- and 2-second exposure times are ruining the art of photography. Some of them are even experimenting with instantaneous exposures using some type of magnesium shavings or powders, which doth emit a frightful sound and a brilliant lighting effect some like the flash in a pan of a flintlock rifle or pistol, but oh,so many times more brilliant. It is said by the practitioners of this new art that photo-graphs can be exposed using the infernal dry plates sold by Eastman, Harrison, and some local manufacturers of dubious repute--with nothing more than the flash of the burning magnesium powder with no need for any actual light from the great orb we call The Sun. Even though the Lord hath not blessed it, it seems that this new breed some contemptuously call "instantaneous photographers" will soon displace those of us who insist on coating our own plates and exposing them within minutes, before the sensitized coating has become dried. These new "instantaneous photographers" shall surely ruin the art of making of photo-graphs, and are to be looked down upon.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 2, 2010)

The only side of photography i can't be doing with is where a photograph has been taken and it's out of focus, boring and someone plays with it in photoshop a calls it art


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 2, 2010)

The only side of photography I can't be doing with is where a photograph  has been taken and it's in focus, excruciatingly detailed and someone sharpens with it  in Photoshop a calls it an accurate representation of what was in front of the camera

Your mileage of course may vary...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 2, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?
> 
> But the saddest part of all is that these people don't seem to realise that all sides of the argument are wrong and the only true form of photography is the form that you yourself believe.
> 
> ...



What irks me to no end is the fascination with one fad technique after another. People think this or that gimmick makes their photos more interesting. It doesn't. I have lived through the Tri-X in Rodinal fad (printed on Agfa Brovira grade 4, of course); the posterization fad; the pushed Tri-X fad; the Agfachrome fad; the sandwiched slides fad; the zoom during exposure fad; the multiple exposure fad; the squeezed Polaroid print fad; the cross-processing fad, and now the digital HDR fad, and so on infinitum.

Why don't people realize that using these techniques does nothing for your photos? I have used some odd techniques once in a while, but only sparingly, and for special purposes. 

99% of what I see today bores me to tears.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 2, 2010)

Garbz said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > (Lost is space.  TV show from the 60's):mrgreen:
> ...



The movie was a poorly done attempt at a re-make.  This is the Real Deal:
"Lost in Space" (1965) :thumbup::thumbup:

Of course it might have just been in the last year or two that the TV show from the sixties made it down under.  Never thought of that.  Sorry. :lmao:


----------



## Garbz (Jul 3, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Of course it might have just been in the last year or two that the TV show from the sixties made it down under.  Never thought of that.  Sorry. :lmao:



Ok I'll pay that. Great comeback


----------



## table1349 (Jul 3, 2010)

Garbz said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it might have just been in the last year or two that the TV show from the sixties made it down under.  Never thought of that.  Sorry. :lmao:
> ...




Give it a go.  The episodes are free on Hulu.   This one is a good one.  Notice the reference to "ARTISTS" at the beginning.  :lmao:  If I remember correctly, Dr. Smith was a Dr. of Philosophy.  

IMDb Video: Junkyard of Space


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 3, 2010)

That tin-plated ninny was always causing him trouble.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 3, 2010)

My gift to all those down under.  

http://www.hulu.com/search?query=Lost+is+space&st=1

This should keep Garbz busy for a while. :mrgreen:


----------



## Garbz (Jul 4, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Give it a go.  The episodes are free on Hulu.



I know, I know. I actually have the entire series here on DVD, I was just ****stiring 
By the way Hulu is Americas only.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 4, 2010)

Garbz said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Give it a go.  The episodes are free on Hulu.
> ...



*What a crock of Wallaby walnuts.*  What is with this regional viewing C#@&? 

I love British comedy, but can I get the BBC here on my computer?  NOOOOOooooooo!  I had to purchase the entire set of Faulty Towers and Black Adder.  Both outrageously funny. 

There are so many great older shows out there around the world, but the viewing is so limited.  Perhaps there could be more peace and understanding in this world if we were able to share our television shows (particularly the comedy shows) with other cultures.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 4, 2010)

Do a search on proxy servers. They're intermediaries that can make you appear to be connecting from somewhere else.


----------



## meccalli (Jul 4, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?
> 
> But the saddest part of all is that these people don't seem to realise that all sides of the argument are wrong and the only true form of photography is the form that you yourself believe.
> 
> ...



...................................Ownage....:thumbup:


----------



## table1349 (Jul 4, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?
> 
> But the saddest part of all is that these people don't seem to realise that all sides of the argument are wrong and the only true form of photography is the form that you yourself believe.
> 
> ...




:thumbup:   The whole complexion of WWII changed in the minds of Americans from one very famous photo.  Joe Rosenthal's photo of the raising of the flag atop Mount Suribachi.   It was years before the world knew that the photo had been in essence been staged at the marines that were in the photo were replacing a smaller flag that had been raised with a larger one. 

Does the fact that  Rosenthal's photo was staged change one little bit the drama or memorability of that photo.  Not one little bit.


----------



## magkelly (Jul 4, 2010)

Actually I see it as being both? A photo captures a moment and time AND it can lead to artistic expression and making a statement depending upon how it's shown and what you decided to do with it. I just don't think you have to choose one or the other. 





skieur said:


> The reason for the "heat" in some of the discussions seems to me to be different conceptions of the nature of photography.
> 
> Some seem to define photography as "capturing a moment in time" while implying that using filters, postprocessing etc. is distorting the accuracy of the "moment" and therefore somehow changing photography into creative design with no relationship to reality. Another way of expressing their view is: accurate content is more important than visual impact or photographic method.
> 
> ...


----------



## skieur (Jul 5, 2010)

Garbz said:


> And every photo will be tonemapped regardless if it's a HDR or not.


 
Out of curiousity, assuming that it is done well, what is your problem with tone-mapping?

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jul 5, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?
> 
> But the saddest part of all is that these people don't seem to realise that all sides of the argument are wrong and the only true form of photography is the form that you yourself believe.
> 
> .


 
Somewhat contradictory, Garbz, if the only true form is what you believe than the two mentioned, could include one that you believe.  You should be experienced enough to know that photographers like anyone else rationalize their attitudes and their actions and you have seen how strong those rationalizations or beliefs are in their arguments.

I am sure you are also well aware that there are a lot of emotional indealists/artists in photography as well as the practical realist/business types, so why should you be surprised that they look at photography differently.  If they have their head up their arses, then so do you, since I am sure that you have some perspective on photography or you would not be expressing yourself so forcefully.

I am just suggesting that the reason that some issues come up every few months is because of different basic views of photography.  If you realize that someone is according to your view ...way off base on their view of photography, then perhaps they should be either ignored or gently pushed to a more appropriate view.  Senseless arguments in the wrong directions don't work.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jul 5, 2010)

magkelly said:


> Actually I see it as being both? A photo captures a moment and time AND it can lead to artistic expression and making a statement depending upon how it's shown and what you decided to do with it. I just don't think you have to choose one or the other.


 
I suppose the difference is whether you are trying to accurately capture a moment in time, which may be visually boring and ineffective and your rationalization for a poor picture, or whether you are trying to artistically express that moment using your creative talent as a photographer.

There is a difference.  The first picture may be more realistic but ineffective, with less visual impact and the second may be more effective and more memorable but less realistic.

skieur


----------



## RichL (Jul 6, 2010)

In the 50 years I've been in photography the argument hasn't changed a bit. 

I personally break my work into 'documentary' and 'creative'.  With documentary I will choose the best composition I can and will tweak (dodge and burn) light levels or color saturation to get as close as I can to what I remember shooting. I will not add or subtract anything from the picture though, even if I  screwed up and have a branch growing out of their head. 

In 'creative' anything goes. 

I should add that I was a darkroom tech and just play the photographer bit.


----------



## skieur (Jul 6, 2010)

RichL said:


> In the 50 years I've been in photography the argument hasn't changed a bit.
> 
> I personally break my work into 'documentary' and 'creative'. With documentary I will choose the best composition I can and will tweak (dodge and burn) light levels or color saturation to get as close as I can to what I remember shooting. I will not add or subtract anything from the picture though, even if I screwed up and have a branch growing out of their head.
> 
> ...


 
If by "documentary' photography, you mean realistically and accurately capturing a scene, it can't be done. One photographer defined framing as picking out and prioritizing elements in a scene and eliminating others. Focal length of the lens and camera angle further distort size and shape of elements as well as their relationship to other objects in the photo. So much for realistic accuracy.

It could be said that by using a camera all your shots are "creative" since you get further removed from realistic accuracy with every photographic decision that you make before you snap the shutter and afterward in postprocessing.

skieur


----------



## RichL (Jul 7, 2010)

Reply removed.

I'm gone, ya'll have a good life.


----------



## skieur (Jul 7, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> > Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?
> ...


 
The above techniques are not the problem. I have seen some outstanding work using these approaches, but compositionally the technique has matched the scene and content/centre of interest perfectly and appropriately and the technique has not been "overdone".

It is the abuse or sloppy application of these techniques that is the source of bad photographic work. 

skieur


----------



## Alpha (Jul 7, 2010)




----------



## smokinphoto (Jul 8, 2010)

maris said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > The reason for the "heat" in some of the discussions seems to me to be different conceptions of the nature of photography.
> ...


 
This guy knows what he's talking about. Please listen to him.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Jul 12, 2010)

Since photography is only a reflection of reality, everyone sees a picture different just like everyone sees reality different. Although I believe reality has definites, absolutes black, white, yes, no, truth, lies etc etc... 
We all have different takes on these concrete things, everyone is different and the same at the same time.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 12, 2010)

maris said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > The reason for the "heat" in some of the discussions seems to me to be different conceptions of the nature of photography.
> ...



But photography is not art and cannot be art. Art and photography are fundamentally different things. Photographs are 'images'; paintings and sculptures are _not _'images' but rather _representations_.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 12, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> maris said:
> 
> 
> > But photography is not art and cannot be art. Art and photography are fundamentally different things. Photographs are 'images'; paintings and sculptures are _not _'images' but rather _representations_.
> ...


----------



## maris (Jul 12, 2010)

> But photography is not art and cannot be art. Art and photography are fundamentally different things. Photographs are 'images'; paintings and sculptures are _not _'images' but rather _representations_.


Petraio Prime is absolutely right! Photography, along with painting and sculpture, is not art. These things are just "media" or "mediums" in which it is possible, but not necessary, to do art.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 12, 2010)

maris said:


> > But photography is not art and cannot be art. Art and photography are fundamentally different things. Photographs are 'images'; paintings and sculptures are _not _'images' but rather _representations_.
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime is absolutely right! Photography, along with painting and sculpture, is not art. These things are just "media" or "mediums" in which it is possible, but not necessary, to do art.



Really???    What is the universally accepted definition of art and  where is it written down for all to see?  I have yet to see one.  Please  enlighten me on this.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 12, 2010)

I'm distinguishing between images and representations. The former are formed by optical systems of objects. The latter have no object.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 13, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I'm distinguishing between images and representations. The former are formed by optical systems of objects. The latter have no object.


You should post your rugby picture so we can bring "snapshot" into the discussion!


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 13, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > I'm distinguishing between images and representations. The former are formed by optical systems of objects. The latter have no object.
> ...



Damn it Jim, I'm a physician, not a metaphysician...

Jim, this thread's dead!


----------



## mishele (Jul 13, 2010)

LOL :hug::

Hug it out guys! You are never going to agree on this art stuff!:lmao:


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 13, 2010)

mishele said:


> LOL :hug::
> 
> Hug it out guys! You are never going to agree on this art stuff!:lmao:



Well the trouble is that discussions of the nature of art and beauty, etc. (aesthetics) belong to the field of philosophy and art criticism. Most photographers do not have this as part of their educational background. I bet not one in 100,000 photographers has had a theory of aesthetics class as a _philosophy _course. So, there is simply not enough understanding of the basic vocabulary and concepts. Photographers tend to talk to other photographers, not philosophers, and so the isolation is reinforced.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 13, 2010)

Some of youse needs to buy a new lens to clean.

You'd almost think that you were talking about Schrödinger's dead cat.  





It's a shame Hertz had to move along, he would have loved this.  :lmao:


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 13, 2010)

Erwin Schrodinger will beat you like a cat in a box.


Maybe.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 13, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Well the trouble is that discussions of the nature of art and beauty, etc. (aesthetics) belong to the field of philosophy and art criticism. Most photographers do not have this as part of their educational background. I bet not one in 100,000 photographers has had a theory of aesthetics class as a _philosophy _course. So, there is simply not enough understanding of the basic vocabulary and concepts. Photographers tend to talk to other photographers, not philosophers, and so the isolation is reinforced.




Gee, Imagine that.  A forum with lots of people involved with art.  Graphic Artist, Art History majors, Artists in other venues that expand their vision through the art of photography and just plain ole fashion people with the good common sense they were born with.  

Yeah, who would have ever thunk that us simple folks could appreciate art.  It's a good thing we got us some filosophers here abouts.  Why I was pert-neer ready to go out and buy me a green and orange striped shirt till I heard about aesthetics.  Shoot I thought them too colors were perty together.  But now I knoed better.  I am gonna go out and get me one of them there filosphical dictonaries that tell you what words really mean when they don't mean what them other dictionaries say they mean.  Come in right handy. ( I got a table with one leg a bit shorter than the other three.  Ought to level it right up real nice.)

Well I gots to go slop the hogs now so I'll let yall photographers go back to talking about photography, which apparently you ain't got no idea as to what it's all about, being photographers an all.  Yall come back now-Ya here.  :mrgreen:


[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua,  palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial,  verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new  roman, serif]What is the first business of philosophy?  To part with  self-conceit.  For it is impossible for anyone to begin to learn what he  thinks that he already knows.  ~Epictetus, _Discourses_
[/FONT]


----------



## table1349 (Jul 13, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Yo, thank yous fo' sayin' wut I wuz thinkin', but I'swuz at work when I done read that, and I ain't got no tiaahm to respond to no phil-o-sophical boo-sheit when I gots 20 people writtin' applications fo' a job we ain't go fo' them.
> 
> You seems like a smart redneck gryph... us un-ED-ucated puerto ricans coul' prolly learn some'in from ya'll.  We ain't got NO idea wish way is up irregardless to photography an' sheit.
> 
> But hell, I juss ass' you next tiaahm I ain't under-stAND-in wuttah do.  You can buss out that DIctionary an' help me tah fig-ure iT.  ouT.









Well like my old college philosophy professor used to tell us when asked why he became a philosophy professor: 

"Those that can't do - Teach.  Those that can't teach - become philosophers."  

He also taught us the most important words any philosopher needs to know:

"You want fries with that???" :lmao:





I like to be in America! 
O.K. by me in America! 
Ev'rything free in America 
For a small fee in America! 


Immigrant goes to America, 
Many hellos in America; 
Nobody knows in America 
*Puerto Rico's in America! *


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 13, 2010)

I reckon you folk are gettin' all prideful-like in fronts of thems that ain't gots.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 13, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> I reckon you folk are gettin' all prideful-like in fronts of thems that ain't gots.



I'm fixing to jump from the possum fat inta the fire here I reckon, but Iens just gots ta aske... "ain't gots" what????





I duu gots ta admit, I am sume prideful of my nue Sunday go ta meeting overalls.  They ain't hardlie got a hole in um or a patch on em.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 13, 2010)

YOU DONT KNOW ME!!!


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 14, 2010)

Pawww!!! Ellie Sue May is gittin ornery!


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 16, 2010)

skieur said:


> The reason for the "heat" in some of the discussions seems to me to be different conceptions of the nature of photography.
> 
> Some seem to define photography as "capturing a moment in time" while implying that using filters, postprocessing etc. is distorting the accuracy of the "moment" and therefore somehow changing photography into creative design with no relationship to reality. Another way of expressing their view is: accurate content is more important than visual impact or photographic method.
> 
> ...


 
I would think its obvious that photography is both of these things.

Although perspective comes into it a little bit, photos are clearly capable of capturing moments in time. 

To argue that it is not possible for a photograph to be a representation of reality would be flawed thinking. Remember all the camera does is record reflections of light, the same as what our eyes see.

An example of this is forensic photography. Its a no nonsense "just the facts" approach to photography that can even be used to determine what happened in the past, definately "a moment captured in time".

Photography is also an art form, and between different techniques and post processing, the lines between fact and fiction are easily blurred.

As we all know Photoshop in the hands of the right person can be used to alter the images in ways that distort the truth of an image.

So in summary Photography can be both art, and a representation of a moment captured in time. It just depends on the goals of the photographer and the methods used.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 16, 2010)

Post processing can also restore the truth of an image. Hello? White balance, sharpening, etc?


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 16, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?


 
I don't think anyone is saying that a photo captures the entire reality of a given moment. For it to do that it would have to record everything in the universe in a given time period of time

Of course a photo can not capture all possible perspectives of a scene, but a person can't even do that.

In many ways a photo is far superior to a humans ability to "remember" a moment in time. This is because a persons own beliefs, perspectives, and all that are major factors in how that memory is recorded in their brain, and eventually recalled.

A photo can capture a moment in time(at least the visual aspect), as good or better than a person can. The camera just captures light much in the same way our own vision works.

For example this person is standing in this exact place, wearing these clothes, holding this object, in this type of weather. Are these not all reality for that moment(or moments) in time?

It canno't possibly capture ALL of reality, but I don't think thats what anyone is saying. It can however "capture" at least a perspective of things in a moment of time that are in fact reality.

Of course video is capable of capturing more moments in time, and thus telling more of a story. That is only because the frames are put together to create motion, its the same concept though.

:mrgreen:


----------

