An essay on Photography and Perception of Images

[D-B-J]

true, but this statement creates a tone that implies negativity towards editing photos due to how it alters the scene.

Because it takes it farther from reality.

Does it? Careful with how you portray and view editing. One can use editing to correct things such as the white balance; adding light to dark sections and reducing the glare of brighter areas (as examples).
Are these things taking it further from reality or instead bringing it closer to reality by repairing limitations of the cameras automatic white balance setting and changing the brightness of sections so that one can "see" in the photo what was more correctly seen with the naked eye (the eye having both a far greater dynamic range and the ability to adapt quickly to brighter and darker areas of a scene so as to give the impression that one can see the whole in a single viewing)).

In short you're presenting editing in the light that many come to view it - that of taking things further away from the truth. As if the naked capture from the camera is somehow always more truthful than it is after the result has been edited/processed.

interesting point. again im talking about most, not all. adding contrast is often done. thats not bringing it closer to the truth, is it?

 

[Overread]

[

interesting point. again im talking about most, not all. adding contrast is often done. thats not bringing it closer to the truth, is it?

Depends how you define the "Truth". Some define it as the unedited RAW output of the camera. However that viewpoint ignores the fact that the camera cannot "see" perfectly. Even such things as contrast can be misrepresented in the RAW photo output as compared to the natural original view.

And then we have to consider that our eyes will see things differently - each person has an adaptive vision and through experience/genetics and many other influences different people will "see" different true views. This is especially true for things like colour

 

[Scatterbrained]

Just a thought for the OP, I have plenty of photos that have required extensive modifications in post to bring the image more inline with how I saw it. The original point of HDR photography was to allow photographers to create images that more accurately reflected level of dynamic range the human eye sees.
Often times when making an exposure you must determine what is important as the camera simply can't properly expose everything. In others you may choose to bias your exposure towards the background knowing you can bring the foreground back in post. Is that taking an image "farther from the truth", or bringing it more in line with reality?

 

[D-B-J]

Just a thought for the OP, I have plenty of photos that have required extensive modifications in post to bring the image more inline with how I saw it. The original point of HDR photography was to allow photographers to create images that more accurately reflected level of dynamic range the human eye sees.
Often times when making an exposure you must determine what is important as the camera simply can't properly expose everything. In others you may choose to bias your exposure towards the background knowing you can bring the foreground back in post. Is that taking an image "farther from the truth", or bringing it more in line with reality?

But you are focusing on editing. Editing it removes it farther from the true or honestly raw setting. Whats the first thing a photographer does before he/she takes the shot? Composes. The act of composing an image already alters the shot, and editing adds to the alteration. Viewpoint alters the shot, even before it is taken. Thats what i am getting at.

Edit: Focal length alters the shot as well.

 

[KmH]

Every photograph ever made has been edited, not just a majority of them.

The real world has 3 dimensions, a photograph only has 2.

Not EVERY photograph is edited. There are those who still refusee to edit, and shoot raw, so there is technically no editing. I myself have posted unedited raw. So i cannot make such a general statement and say EVERY photograph is edited.

Yes. Every photograph ever made has been edited.

Don't forget that pre-processing is also editing, and at a minimum the photographer and the lens pre-process every photo.

 

[fwellers]

Personally I wouldn't even be into photography if all it did was faithfully reproduce what my eyes see.
Yea sometimes I want to do that,but I enjoy the attempt of adding an artistic touch , whether during capture or during post.

I think though, in line with your original post, the world should be aware ( especially these days with the power technology lends to editing ), that no picture can be trusted to be "real".
Maybe some of them are, but they could just as easily be total photoshop.

 

[D-B-J]

Personally I wouldn't even be into photography if all it did was faithfully reproduce what my eyes see.
Yea sometimes I want to do that,but I enjoy the attempt of adding an artistic touch , whether during capture or during post.

I think though, in line with your original post, the world should be aware ( especially these days with the power technology lends to editing ), that no picture can be trusted to be "real".
Maybe some of them are, but they could just as easily be total photoshop.

Thats what i wanted you all to get out if this. I myself like adding an artistic touch. People just need to be more "aware" of the amount of editing and processing images go through these days.

 

[kkamin]

Photography has never been an objective medium and can never be.

Ever since the first photograph was captured in 1826, people have been making creative decisions in how they process the photograph.

Casting aside post-processing for a second, what makes you think the camera captures truth to begin with or anything close to it? A photograph is a series of dots on a piece of paper or illuminated leds on a monitor. Your brain interprets it as realistic, but if you hold a photograph next to the real scene they are vastly different. Like Overread said, life is composed of 3 dimensions, photography uses only 2. It has no spatial depth. It is a flat piece of paper or a flat screen. Photographs find ways through lighting, composition and focus to create the illusion of depth--otherwise it becomes visually jumbled and hard to read.

And I will take it a step further and say that life is in 4 dimensions...time being the fourth. We never experience life in frozen moments. A photograph is a static moment, something that does not exist in real life. A photograph is a creative artifact. Imagine trying to photograph someone and trying to capture their 'truth'. Put your camera on burst mode and take a series of images. Which one is more 'true'? Some of the frames the subject might be blinking or have an awkward transitory expression of their face. Others might be blurry or super sharp. Which one is more real? ...none of them. A photograph is no more real than a painting on the level we are discussing.

At what camera height or angle is objective or true? Photographing your subject at eye level, ground level looking up or from a birds eye view will impart different meaning to the photograph. There is no objective angle.

A photograph is usually a rectangular object. My vision is not rectangular. I have a very small spot of focus with my vision and then everything softens and blurs to an amorphous shape. Photographs can be square, horizontal or vertical. My field of view is an organic, never static, constantly shifting mess.

Why did you frame the shot the way you did? What is outside the rectangle. Why didn't you include that in the frame? You are deciding what you want in the picture and you are deciding what is 'true'? Who are you? God?

Like others have said. The camera and eye do not see in the same way. Look at some optical illusions and you will quickly see how our visual system is not objective. Study color theory and you will see how the relationships between colors are relative. Often people use post-production to bring the image closer to how they experienced the scene in reality. The camera is stupid. The human brain is not.

The camera is not an objective recording device. It is as much a subject tool as a paint brush or a writer's keyboard. Just because it imitates visual reality perhaps better than other mediums does not mean it close enough to reality to even introduce the word 'truth' or define levels of truth to a particular process.

 

[D-B-J]

Photography has never been an objective medium and can never be.

Ever since the first photograph was captured in 1826, people have been making creative decisions in how they process the photograph.

Casting aside post-processing for a second, what makes you think the camera captures truth to begin with or anything close to it? A photograph is a series of dots on a piece of paper or illuminated leds on a monitor. Your brain interprets it as realistic, but if you hold a photograph next to the real scene they are vastly different. Like Overread said, life is composed of 3 dimensions, photography uses only 2. It has no spatial depth. It is a flat piece of paper or a flat screen. Photographs find ways through lighting, composition and focus to create the illusion of depth--otherwise it becomes visually jumbled and hard to read.

And I will take it a step further and say that life is in 4 dimensions...time being the fourth. We never experience life in frozen moments. A photograph is a static moment, something that does not exist in real life. A photograph is a creative artifact. Imagine trying to photograph someone and trying to capture their 'truth'. Put your camera on burst mode and take a series of images. Which one is more 'true'? Some of the frames the subject might be blinking or have an awkward transitory expression of their face. Others might be blurry or super sharp. Which one is more real? ...none of them. A photograph is no more real than a painting on the level we are discussing.

At what camera height or angle is objective or true? Photographing your subject at eye level, ground level looking up or from a birds eye view will impart different meaning to the photograph. There is no objective angle.

A photograph is usually a rectangular object. My vision is not rectangular. I have a very small spot of focus with my vision and then everything softens and blurs to an amorphous shape. Photographs can be square, horizontal or vertical. My field of view is an organic, never static, constantly shifting mess.

Why did you frame the shot the way you did? What is outside the rectangle. Why didn't you include that in the frame? You are deciding what you want in the picture and you are deciding what is 'true'? Who are you? God?

Like others have said. The camera and eye do not see in the same way. Look at some optical illusions and you will quickly see how our visual system is not objective. Study color theory and you will see how the relationships between colors are relative. Often people use post-production to bring the image closer to how they experienced the scene in reality. The camera is stupid. The human brain is not.

The camera is not an objective recording device. It is as much a subject tool as a paint brush or a writer's keyboard. Just because it imitates visual reality perhaps better than other mediums does not mean it close enough to reality to even introduce the word 'truth' or define levels of truth to a particular process.

A little more indepth than i had planned to go with my essay, but i do like that you took the time to write that. Thank you for your indepth point of view.

Regards,
Jake

 

[dxqcanada]

I for one understand where you are going with the essay.