[Recently, I seem to have run out of fresh, new material, which partially explains my more infrequent posts here (my goal has been one a week and over the years, I have largely met it). When I get into these times, I will sometimes look back at prior posts to see if there is anything worth re-visiting, and through my Lightroom archives to see if anything stimulates me. I have done that for the last 2 weeks. Nothing.] 🙂
“truth isn’t absolute”
So, this morning, I spent some time with my friend, “GOOGLE,” and found this article, “ Why Facts Aren’t Always Truth In Photography“. Many will remember the Afgan Girl magazine cover that (perhaps) launched photographer Steve McCurry into international recognition. He has recently made news (at least in the photographic world) again. Without getting into the specific circumstances of the article (written by a colleague and fellow professional photographer, Peter van Agtmael) it’s “10,000 foot view” is, in my view, focused more on some principles of “truth” in photography that can be generalized. And boy, did it resonate with me. In fact, it can — I believe — be applied to much of what has gone on in the past several months over media, social media and even the coffee table.
Starting with one of my earliest posts, “Get Real,” and for example, “Has The Digital Medium Changed Everything?,” and “Photoshop Is Not Evil,” over the years I have been writing here, I have made frequent reference to my thoughts on the use of “digital darkroom techniques” to “enhance” my own images. I think I have made position clear when it comes to the art of photography. But Mr. van Agtmael ventures into photography that is not made, per se, as “art.” Rather, he addresses what I refer to as “reportage” photography. Presumably, the image depicts things exactly as they appeared.
“We shouldn’t mistake something factual for something truthful, and we should always question which facts are employed, and how.” (Peter van Agtmael)
Humanity is not scientific. Biology is. The human brain is a scientific wonder. The workings of human brain? Well that is only “scientific” to the extent that it is thinking about science. The rest? It’s an art form for certain. How else can both the consistency and inconsistency of human thought be explained? And so, Mr. van Agtmael posits something we have all heard back in our own ancient histories, at some point. In my words, “truth isn’t absolute.” But that is a bit cliche‘. In his much more eloquently stated words: ” ... there were a lot of loaded words like ‘truth’ and ‘objectivity’ being thrown around. I don’t really believe in these words. I’ve never met two people with the same truth, nor seen true objectivity ever demonstrably applied to anything. They are nice words, but remain aspirational and cloud a more nuanced interpretation of reality and history. We shouldn’t mistake something factual for something truthful, and we should always question which facts are employed, and how.” I like that. Our world is filled with millions and millions of “facts.” We also hear a lot of opinion which is cited as fact. But even with incontrovertible, empirically provable facts, it is still important to understand context and relevance.
The opening image here is (OMG!) altered. I know viewers will say I “saturated” it, I “enhanced” it, etc. (maybe; maybe not 🙂 ). But that isn’t really what I mean. This image was physically “altered” before it was even made! I had an image I wanted to depict, and in the crotch formed by the 3 trunks there was I small pile of dead branches which were (in my view) unsightly and distracting. Is it relevant that I removed them and spread the leaves around a bit? Could the image have been found the way I have presented it? Perhaps if I were trying to depict the “pristine” quality of nature, or deny that it can sometimes be messy, the answer would be different. I appreciate that this is not reporting on the refugee crisis and is trivial in relation to that. But this is a photography blog, and I don’t do reportage photography. I just thought Mr. van Agtmael’s point would resonate even in the perhaps less significant milieu of nature photography.
How else can both the consistency and inconsistency of human thought be explained?
Those who have read here previously know the story of the Goat Island Light Image. I placed those chairs there. “Hand of man and all that good stuff.” Again, I don’t mean to trivialize the serious piece. But I do think the larger point has application to all of our photography.
If the viewer looks carefully at the bottom center of this image, there is a snarl of yellow polyethlyene rope in the foreground. A better photographer than I would probably have seen that detail and excluded it (or perhaps purposely included it, again depending on the goal of the image). I would not perhaps shock anyone here that before I made a print of this image I (GASP!) “Photoshopped” the rope out.
Small things. But then, from small minds …….. 🙂
But seriously, I would commend the reader to read the Peter van Agtmael piece on Steve McCurry debacle. While you may or may not agree with me, or with its premise, I hope you will agree that it it thought – provoking.
Filed under: MUSINGS, PHOTOGRAPHY | Tagged: Andy Richards, color, DSLR, exposure, fall, fall color, Fall Foliage, foliage, LightCentric Photography, Michigan, National Park, National Parks, PHOTOGRAPHY, Photoshop, Sony, U.P. | Leave a comment »