Just keep in mind, if you use your camera to "represent reality," then do
so. Nobody said you couldn't alter the truth to effect your pursuit of art.
A studio shot of glass and dice doesn't have to be the truth. Unless you
intended it to be so.
If you choose a calling to bring us the reality of a scene why can it not
simply be that? Reality represented with out interpretation. Are we
suggesting that's not possible?
I heard a story once that in it's abridged version stated; 100 people were
placed in theater. As they sat, a man with gun entered from the right. A man
in a cape entered from the left and fought with the man with a gun at the
center of the theater's stage. A women entered from the rear, ran up to the
man with a gun and took it and left the room from the same door as the man
with the cape had entered. The other two men left the room using the
opposite doors from which they had entered.
There were dozens of varying interpretations given when the audience was
asked to describe what had happened. Interpretations of the truth. Yet,
reality represented was that someone staged, scripted the event. They hired
the actors, acquired a prop gun and held rehearsals and then put on the
show. The actors DID come out of their respective stage entrances, the man
with the cape never had the gun. Yet, many in the audience saw it that way.
In my humble opinion, there is Always a representational version and the
interpreted version of everything that happens in front of you and the
choice is simple, as a photographer, which side do you want to be on?
Take care,
Gregory david Stempel
www.fireframeimaging.com
www.soundexposure.org
