Ah, the biggie. The belief that the camera somehow records the truth. It seems to be modified these days by an understanding that images may be altered, but only if they're digital...but I'll leave that one for another Myth.
Has the camera ever told the truth? Well, it captures whatever's in front of it for the period that the shutter is open, but is that the truth we would recognise? Think about all the choices a photographer makes: let's start with choice of black and white or colour. Black and white simply isn't how we perceive the world (except in very low light), so how can it be true on any level? Even colour is tricky - it appears that we all perceive colour differently, for one thing, but what about producing pastel or super-saturated shots? Next, filters; a polariser certainly gives a different image to one we can see with bare eyes, for a start. Choice of lens and viewpoint to change perspective - not something we can easily do with the eye. Selection of focus point and depth of field - the photographer can manipulate the image to look very different to anything that could normally be seen. Use of shutter speed - we don't see water blurred the way it can be portrayed with a long exposure, nor can we freeze very fast movement - the camera can. Finally (for now) there's the response of the recoring medium - very few can manage the contrast range that the eye can.
So in the camera we have an instrument that faithfully records what's presented to it, but whose resulting images don't necessarily portray any kind of reality that we might recognise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There is also the most basic way in which a camera can be used to present an untruth or a selective truth ... by use of composition and (including or excluding) context. For example:
Photographer A sees a riot and composes a photograph in which rioters are beating up police, and police beating up rioters. The whole scenario is captured in one image, the context (the location, the protest banners - i.e. the reason for the protest - the consequences of actions, even the approximate date - judging by the clothing and hairstyles) is visible or at least open to analysis.
Photographer B composes his photograph consisting of a rioter beating a policeman. This photograph may be more aesthetically pleasing, the composition may have considerably more impact, and it may meet an editorial or personal/political requirement. However it lacks context, it lacks a explanation of why, when, how, who and what.
Which one is the truth? The simple fact is that they both are, but photographer B has removed the context. Photography has always been used to present a selective truth long before the advent of digital cameras and photoshop. Even if we, as photographers, attempt to remove any subjectivity in our work, try to produce the most 'honest' result that we can, we simply cannot help applying our tastes and values.
Post a Comment