Yes, a photograph is a depiction of the subject at hand. And it is even an exact representation considering the variables as mentioned by Jean-David. What was seen with an 8mm lens on a 35mm camera may not be what anyone else would see unless they were standing in the same place and were using an 8mm lens on a 35mm camera. So-called reality may be represented to look like anything at all. And all ways of representation are true. But that in itself is meaningless.
There are a virtual infinite number of ways to photograph "the subject at hand." Film choice, camera choice, lens choice, filter choice, and other variables such as intentional (or unintentional) camera shake during the exposure, not to mention distance and angle from the subject (Cartier-Bresson in his "Introduction to the Decisive Moment" mentions how moving the camera even a millimeter changes the picture entirely)--all will affect how the final photograph will look. It is in the making of choices from the almost infinite number of possibilities that the photographer reveals who he or she is.
In one of his books the late Bill Jay points out that for a class assignment somewhere (in France I believe it was), all of the students were told (one after another) to stand in the same place, use one camera and lens (they all used the very same camera, not an identical one), on one roll of film, and were told to photograph a scene before them looking only in one direction and at one angle. Result was that all of the photographs were different from each other.
If all you want from your photographs is a representation of the subject at hand, to perhaps serve as a memory trigger to prove you were there, well and good. But there are among us, others who want something more from their photographs—a greater connection to the world. Art works, in all mediums, have the ability to connect us to the world and to each other. My understanding is that they do this through making a connection to universal rhythms. Creating those rhythms in a photograph, whatever the subject—that is what it is all about, for me.
Michael On 11/19/13 5:10 PM, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
On 11/19/2013 12:34 PM, Bill wrote:A photograph, unless post-processed, is exactly a representation of what’s before the camera. Where you place the camera and when you trip the shutter can, of course, make vast differences, but the essence of any photograph is depiction of the subject at hand.Do I ever disagree with that statement! It is one of many possible representations of what is wat is before the camera. But _exactly_ is really a poor term to use here. Many things that might be before the camera are polychromatic, whereas I might photograph it with monocromatic film. Most things are three dimensional, whereas my image will just be a geometric projection of that thing ultimately onto a piece of paper. And in picking my point of view, I distort what others might see if they look at the same object, even if they look at it at the same time as I do. A psychologist at a local community college, who is also a quite good photographer, once gave a lecture to the effect that all photographs are surreal. I.e., they look real, they are even sometimes accepted as evidence in courtrooms. But it is quite easy to photograph something in a way that would be amazingly misleading in a court room. Say by making a portrait of someone with an 8 millimeter lens on a 35 millimeter camera and getting very close to the subject. That would a geometric projection of what was in front of the camera, and it might be interesting in some way. Yikes.
============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
