I would go a little bit further than Keith does here in saying the camera lies. Essentially, skies aren't blown out in normal human vision. Much of the craft of photography consists of efforts to get images to conform to some concept of our visual perception of the world. Our actual perception is definitely too complex to be encompassed or fully described by any practically attainable group of photographic images. I wonder if a lot of the passion around these questions has to do with the inacapacity of an objective process (photography) to fully reflect a subjective process (human vision)?
At 10:43 PM -0500 1/6/03, Keith Alan Sprouse wrote:
Thanks for your comments! At 04:51 PM 1/6/2003 -0800, Gregory wrote:You CAN argue the intended perception. The camera does tell the truth, it's the photographer who lies.I'm not sure that I agree with the terms "truth" and "lies," but I agree with the notion of an intended perception or reception -- and I think the context surrounding the image plays a role here.Lens choice does not represent manipulation, only choice.Of course, I'd have to disagree here, for reasons that I've already elaborated in other messages and that you make a nod to in the next paragraph.An ND Grad is about working within the limitations of the film not about manipulation. Manipulation can be the title of those actions if you preferI would, of course, given that, to use the notions of objectivity, truth, lies, etc. that you suggest, an ND grad "lies" about the sky -- if it's so bright that it would be blown out on film, if we want to be truly objective about it, then it should be blown out in the photo. But since I accept that photography is necessarily about manipulation to create a certain image, even if the goal of that manipulation is to create the scene that I see when I look at the sky, it's still manipulation.If you put a rock into the scene to fill the foreground of your mountain shot, you are manipulating the truth and if do not allow anyone to know you put that rock there, you are manipulating the perception of the truth, you intended to mislead, to misrepresent the inalienable truth of that scene.Hmmm... I would say that maybe you are crossing a line and maybe you are not, and I'd refer back to the context -- if the photo is one of the pretty landscape photos meant as a fine art image to hang on somebody's wall, I'd have a hard time calling it unethical to put a rock there. If, however, you take a photo of the same thing for the Nature Conservancy in order to call attention to some aspect of the environment, then I would have a problem with that. I think that the context is key here.It seems to me, the true nature of this discussion is not perception but intention. You photograph anything you want, anyway you want, just continue the line of integrity all of the way to the viewer.I have no problem with that as a precept. I have a question, though: I would say that Doisneau's _intention_ in making the photo was to show a certain image of "romance in Paris," which he accomplished quite well. Since the article in which it appeared was dedicated to that theme, and since it was not a sort of photo-survey of how often or not people kissed in the street in France (which would imply a different intention on his part), would it still be a problematic image for you? Thanks again! Keith ___________________________________________________________ Keith Alan Sprouse / Department of Modern Languages 176 Hampden-Sydney College / Hampden-Sydney, VA 23943 (o) 434.223.6335 / (f) 434.223.6347 / (h) 434.244.0465
-- Alan P. Hayes Meaning and Form: Writing, Editing and Document Design Pittsfield, Massachusetts
