Photographer/Image/Viewer

[RMThompson]

Of course the act of Photography is an intrusion. How could it not be? Normally light dies a natural death (just a metaphor there) but when you use a camera you trap some of that light by photochemical processes and take it away with you as an image. You have put yourself between two natural events (the origination of light and the 'death' of light) and altered the process. That sounds like an intrusive act to me.
It follows that an inanimate object must respond passively to this intrusion because it can do nothing to stop you.

You're giving light a lifespan now?

That's over the top. Light, per it's definition, is electromagnetic radiation that can be seen by the eye. Some call it a wave, like sound and others refer to it as an actual particle, like mass. The light we are commonly referring to when taking pictures is thermal light, created by the sun or a bulb.

What you refer to as interruption or an intrustion I would call a reflection. If I am standing in the path of light and it's destination, all that does is change the direction of the waves, not give it any type of death. The wave continues and reflects based on several factors and then the wavelength may be altered, but surely not dead. In fact lack of "light" doesn't even mean these wavelengths have disapeared, they could be in a wavelength not visible to the human eye.

However all of this is inapplicable to photography. In photography we are doing nothing more than RECORDING the way light hits mass, and this is a purely passive act in relation to the items being photographed. Objects can NOT be altered merely by photographing them. (I dont mean standing in front of a plant blocking the sun with a camera in your hand, I mean the act of a shutter capturing and recording light)

One may argue that the light the camera is capturing would have travled somewhere else, but that's mean taking a picture is no more intrusive than walking down a path. If you think that is intrusive in nature, than thereby, living is intrusive and your argument is WAY to new-age for me to argue.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

At the atomic level electromagnetic radiation of whatever the wavelength is created when an atom has to shed some energy. To some extent the wavelength is directly related to the amount of energy needed to be lost - the more energy that has to be lost, the higher the frequency.
The mechanism involved produces a 'packet' of energy which, for the visiblr part of the spectrum at least, is called a photon.
When a photon hits an atom the the energy is transferred to an electron. In doing this the photon ceases to exist.
The energy is not created nor is it destroyed but the mechanism of energy transfer - the photon - can be created and destroyed. It follows that light can only exist for a finite time = it's lifespan.

When a photon hits a silver halide molecule it is absorbed (as per above) and ceases to exist. Therefore that light it cannot be reflected.
The energy transferrence to the silver halide molecule is what creates the latent image.
For a full discussion on this look up the Gurney-Mott theory of latent image formation.
For digital the equivalent process is the photoelectric effect.

Seeing as how both digital and film cameras 'destroy' photons to produce an image, and cameras are man-made and not natural, it follows that taking a picture intercepts photons that would ordinarily have gone about their business.
Therefore taking a photograph interferes with the normal (or natural) course of events.
Still sounds like an intrusive act to me, unless you want to try to argue that Photography is natural (like living on nuts and berries) and not an artificial, man-made activity

 

[danalec99]

If the range of possible meanings of an image is dictated, to some extent, by it’s content and this content is decided, to some extent, by the photographer then the range of possible meanings of an image must be dictated, to some extent, by the photographer.

Here lies the challenge.
Straight shots like this one for example, are self explanatory, up to an extent. The slope becomes slippery when the image in question is an abstract landscape or anything, where the message is not obvious.

But, why must we have a cap on 'possible' interpretations? Why must we force the viewer to see how *I* saw it? Merely thinking out loud...

 

[morydd]

All right, I'll dive in blindly. Raised by a Psych major (the Mr. Skinner comment made me laugh), majored in Theater, minored in Religion. If I can interpret facts to fit my opinions, no one can.

Is photography the act of taking the picture, or the act of determining what version of the recorded image is presented to a viewer? Photography is, in my mind, a multi step process:
The first step is quite simply recording light. Accidental or on purpose, realistic or abstract, all you're doing is allowing light to interact with some mechanism capable of recording what light is hitting it. This recording, is frequently the most complex, because as the photographer (I think the cat in one of the above examples plays that role) you are making decisions as to what aspect of the light you are recording. You're either deciding to influence the light significantly, or not at all, you're determining when to make the actual recording, and you're determining what the recording mechanism is pointed at. (in the case of the random things, you're still making these decisions, you're just deciding to let something else determine the specifics, you're still providing the ranges) To me, this is technique.

The second stage is when you decide what image you will present to the viewer. Do you manipulate the image (well, as none of us can see undeveloped film, read the binary output of a sensor, etc; there must be some level of manipulation) how much do you manipulate it, dodge and burn, boost levels, what size, what media, etc. To me, this is craft.

Finally, you must present the image to a viewer. This is the stage that is out of your hands. But this is the fun part. No matter how much you want your image to "mean" something specific, a viewer can interpret it differently. I think for most of us, this is why we take photographs. This, to me, is art.

Art does not exist without technique and craft, but art is, for most of us the goal. That's what makes this fun. Both the viewer and the photographer influence the meaning of a picture. The photographer by making the decisions that determine what image is presented to the viewer, and the viewer by bringing their own education, culture, emotions, etc. to the viewing. The limits are imposed, by both the creator and the viewer, simply because we are not omniscient, but those limits can be amazingly broad.

 

[RMThompson]

I think the point of all this is frivilous at best though. We are making small arguments on tinier subjects, niggling over things like light's lifespan and what role a photographer takes.

The bigger picture here, to me, is what affect photography CAN have on the subject and the viewer and the photographer. As photographers we are, most of the time, passive artists, meaning we take what's there and try to show it in a new way... filmmakers are the same to some degree.

It's been said that photographers and even filmmakers are intentionally distant to some degree. If we are taking a picture it helps to distance ourselves from the possible emotions. For example, if you're taking a picture of a riot at a political rally, you need to take your OWN feelings out of it. Or, if you're taking pictures of a REALLY attractive model, you have to keep your feelings subsided and focus on the picture.

So, what affect does that have on US as photographers? Can it create a numbness, after awhile, to what we shoot, or can it do the opposite? Can it bring us closer?

Furthermore what about the relationships of the people youve photographed? I for one can tell you that ive met GORGEOUS women that I could never talk to without the context of photography, and would never have talked to me anyway, and once Ive shot them, become closer and even built friendships. Something about capturing their image, or helping them understand their own beauty perhaps, gives us a closeness. I remember the first girl I shot nude, afterwards we were talking and she commented on how much closer we felt, and that she was really happy we did the shoot... it was a great feeling!

In addition Ive garnered respect of people, to the point where they've paid me to take pictures of them, merely by showing them my work. That surely has affected them... but HOW? Are they longing to look like someone I've shot, or are they confident I can bring out the emotion in them they are looking for?

I don't know.... and that's OK with me.

thoughts?

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I define the act of Photography as 'the human activity of taking pictures' - to seperate it from the process of Photography, which is the Technical aspect.
I'm sure you all understand and accept that these two things are entirely different. One is how it all works, the other is what we do with it.

As for the frivolity aspect - no, it isn't. The reasoning behind this answer is simple. You cannot hope to achieve anything useful in the way of thinking about cause, effect, experience, usefulness or any of a number of different aspects of the whole subject of Photography unless you pin down the minutiae first.
To give a very easy example: no-one has, as yet, successfully defined Photography or The Photograph. How can you talk about something when you don't really know what you are talking about? The answer is: you can't.
We all think we know what we mean when we talk about Photography, but who has actually given it more than a moments thought? And be honest here. We just assume, don't we? And what has been talked about in this thread so far just highlights the point - we all have a slightly different idea of what we mean.
My aim, and what I have been working on for over 20 years, is to put in place a framework within which we can actually have meaningful discussions about Photography. This has meant looking at absolutely everything even remotely associated with the subject (for example, a common definition of a photograph is 'a frozen moment in time'. And we all have heard of 'the decisive moment'. But what actually is a 'moment' in photographic terms?).
It dawned on me very early on that before I could do anything I had to define the subject. I think I have just about done it, though it is a little complex. But my definition makes a lot of things clear and seems to touch all bases (I think).
I was going to publish it as part of my Doctorate but I have just decided to throw that dream out of the window and I am going to publish it here. It may be a few weeks, though, as there is a lot to write and I like to keep the language clear and simple. Stay tuned.