On 10/25/2012 8:15 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> The meaning of photograph is well-understood by most people on the
>> planet to not include structural modification or re-arrangement of the
>> captured reality. The implication of some form of authenticity must be
>> retained. This is very different to, for example, altering contrast or
>> colour hues.
> OK, then we have a problem with Moose's latest abstract photograph. Is
> it a photograph? Yes. Is it authentic? Knowing Moose, the answer is
> believed to be yes. Does it include structural modification or
> re-arrangement of the captured reality? In-camera, yes.
I'm gonna disagree. This particular image is closer to 'pure' than almost any
others I post. The exposure was very
slightly low, so I pulled the top up from 248 to 255. And I cropped some black
off the top; it was a subject that called
for something more like the 3:2 of 35mm than 4:3.
I don't think that cropping and a tiny tone/contrast adjustment amount to any
sort of structural mods/re-arrangement.
Did the subject end up blurred as a result of factors inherent in its situation
and the limits of the tool used? Yes.
Did I try to make that happen? No.
> Whether it's done in-camera or in-computer doesn't really matter too
> much, does it? As to the darkroom, I'm not skilled at it, but I can do
> a ton of manipulation in the darkroom that doesn't look at all like
> the original. And it's not just tonal and contrast adjustments.
A photograph is an abstraction, not the thing photographed. One could even
argue that the image formed in my mind when I
look at a subject is an abstraction. I believe that to be true.
By their nature, these two abstractions are different not only from 'reality',
but from each other. It seems to me that
the most an 'accurate' photograph can do is to create an image in my mind more
or less similar to that in the
photographer's mind when the image was captured.
One might argue that a highly realistic photograph is one that creates in my
mind an image similar to what would be
formed by my viewing of the subject. If we go further, and imagine a photograph
that creates in me an emotional reaction
similar to that I would have viewing the original subject, we may allow
considerable variation from 'straight'
photography, while still remaining "realistic" or "accurate".
In "The Negative", St. Ansel says:
"Many consider my photographs to be in the 'realistic' category. Actually, what
reality they have is in their optical
image accuracy; their [tonal] values are definitely 'departures from reality'.
The viewer may accept them as realistic
because the visual effect may be plausible, but if it were possible to make
direct visual comparison with the subjects,
the difference would be startling".
> ... it involves the destruction of multiple rolls of film.
Always a good idea. ;-)
Philosophically Imagistic Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|