Is photography reality? No.

[Alan Edward Klein]

Through the years philosophers have proposed that we cannot directly experience the world outside our minds (if it exists), but only our mental representations of it. With recent research empirical evidence is mounting about how true this is. It appears that we don't directly sense things or see things in the world--ever. We experience a mental simulation of it that scientists are calling a controlled hallucination. I think the word hallucination has some unfortunate connotations of pathology and simulation might be a better term. But the way that the brain generates dreams, hallucinations, and our perception of the world is very similar. Perception differs by having more error correction. If our mental simulations were a perfectly accurate depiction of the outer world perhaps it would not matter. But it turns out that it is far from a perfect likeness. So, photos are not an exact likeness of the material world, and neither are our perceptions.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-reality/

That was the point I was making. It's also why it's almost impossible to understand Einstein meaning for the 4th time-space dimension relationship because we can only process 3 dimensions in our brains. It's like trying to explain to a person blind since birth what a specific color looks like.

 

[Don_ih]

What is an appropriate standard for discourse in a setting like Photrio?

One philosophy course tends to make people think they can discuss things philosophically. Ten philosophy courses tend to make you embarrassed you ever thought that.

There is no such thing as "philosophical rigour". Rigour applies generally to argument structure of any kind. If an argument is logically sound and based on valid premises, it is likely true.

This thread is not a philosophy seminar group discussion. It's a colloquial discourse. As such, bringing in specialized terms does no good. It does harm. What's happened here is people have started to trickle in specialized streams of discourse about things which are colloquially understood perfectly well. The fact is, we all have more-or-less the same naive or colloquial understanding of "photography" and of "reality" - unrelated to the specialized language of quantum physics and its concerns or of philosophical noumena. Everyone here is capable of talking about the topic in a meaningful way without citing abstract theoretical science or schools of philosophy. Doing such is essentially a call to authority - an irrelevant authority.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What about chromogenic prints? They're made with light and about 99.9999998% of them are from digital files.

I realized there was that process. But I was referring to the usual printing with inks. Droplets are applied to paper in the same way a sketch or oil painting is done. There are no light requirements like a film enlarger or contact print exposing film paper with light.

 

[koraks]

But I was referring to the usual printing with inks.

I understand. And at the risk of being pedantic, I'd say what is 'usual' depends a lot on what segment you're looking at. Chromogenic printing is a vast market. Around here, it's the usual way of getting (digital) photographs printed. Inkjet is a substantially smaller segment here.

But that's not so important; a more relevant question is why do you believe the action of light is relevant? Mind you, I 'feel' your argument and in a way, I agree, but I also realize very well that I have not a single valid/objective argument to support that feeling. So I'd be interested to hear your take on this (and anyone else's).
And also: is a chromogenic print from a digital file any different than one made in an enlarger? And what about an analog minilab that's basically just an automated enlarger inside a box?

Apologies for taking this slightly off-topic. It's still about how photography and reality relate to each other; just a different angle than the outset presented in the OP.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I understand. And at the risk of being pedantic, I'd say what is 'usual' depends a lot on what segment you're looking at. Chromogenic printing is a vast market. Around here, it's the usual way of getting (digital) photographs printed. Inkjet is a substantially smaller segment here.

But that's not so important; a more relevant question is why do you believe the action of light is relevant? Mind you, I 'feel' your argument and in a way, I agree, but I also realize very well that I have not a single valid/objective argument to support that feeling. So I'd be interested to hear your take on this (and anyone else's).
And also: is a chromogenic print from a digital file any different than one made in an enlarger? And what about an analog minilab that's basically just an automated enlarger inside a box?

Apologies for taking this slightly off-topic. It's still about how photography and reality relate to each other; just a different angle than the outset presented in the OP.

I wasn't trying to start an argument. I was only pointing out that a photo print can be made without light as most home digital printers operate that way. .

 

[chuckroast]

The print process is different since digital printing with inks does not use light as chemically printing does with an enlarger.

Yes, they are very different in many ways. My only point is that both are "facsimiles".

 

[koraks]

I wasn't trying to start an argument.

I didn't think you were. My question to you was sincere.

I was only pointing out that a photo print can be made without light as most home digital printers operate that way. .

Yeah, so my question is how the difference between these two ways of printing meaningful? Sure, there are technical differences, but setting those apart for a bit - is a print made in either of these ways somehow more real, more meaningful, more valuable etc. than the other?

 

[chuckroast]

One philosophy course tends to make people think they can discuss things philosophically. Ten philosophy courses tend to make you embarrassed you ever thought that.

There is no such thing as "philosophical rigour". Rigour applies generally to argument structure of any kind. If an argument is logically sound and based on valid premises, it is likely true.

This thread is not a philosophy seminar group discussion. It's a colloquial discourse. As such, bringing in specialized terms does no good. It does harm. What's happened here is people have started to trickle in specialized streams of discourse about things which are colloquially understood perfectly well. The fact is, we all have more-or-less the same naive or colloquial understanding of "photography" and of "reality" - unrelated to the specialized language of quantum physics and its concerns or of philosophical noumena. Everyone here is capable of talking about the topic in a meaningful way without citing abstract theoretical science or schools of philosophy. Doing such is essentially a call to authority - an irrelevant authority.

All of philosophy - every last school - boils down to one thing: Your presuppositions (axioms). Those foundational things from which the entire system of thought springs. These axioms are - in their own right - necessarily assumed and cannot be proven to be so, one way or another.

This is true of every single intellectual tradition including science itself. All systems of thought assume at least one thing (and often more than one) and proceed from there. Outside the very narrow definition of "proof" in mathematics, nothing can absolutely be proven, only shown to be consistent, or not, with the starting points. (Even that has a pretty big hole in it thanks to Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems.)

So philosophical debate across systems founded on different presuppositions are a fools errand. The only debate worth having in these cases is to the question of the merit of the presuppositions themselves.

A classical thinker or theist starts on the assumption that there is a body of things that are true independent of anyone knowing or experiencing them. An existentialist assumes none of that is relevant until one experiences it themselves. A postmodernist assumes all truth to be relative to each individual and denies the existence of any objective truth whatsoever (though it's hard to get them to admit it).

The point is, what you think you "know" depends exactly on what you assumed as a starting point in the first place. And THAT, I think, is why you see the debating society here. However subtle or hidden, people's assumptions about what is "real" are different ...

 

[Don_ih]

All of philosophy - every last school - boils down to one thing: Your presuppositions (axioms). Those foundational things from which the entire system of thought springs. These axioms are - in their own right - necessarily assumed and cannot be proven to be so, one way or another.

This is true of every single intellectual tradition including science itself. All systems of thought assume at least one thing (and often more than one) and proceed from there. Outside the very narrow definition of "proof" in mathematics, nothing can absolutely be proven, only shown to be consistent, or not, with the starting points. (Even that has a pretty big hole in it thanks to Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems.

So philosophical debate across systems founded on different presuppositions are a fools errand. The only debate worth having in these cases is to the question of the merit of the presuppositions themselves.

A classical thinker or theist starts on the assumption that there is a body of things which are true independent of anyone knowing or experiencing them. An existentialist assumes none of that is relevant until one experiences it themselves. A postmodernist assumes all true to be relative to each individual and denies the existence of any objective truth whatsoever (though it's hard to get them to admit it).

The point is, what you think you "know" depends exactly on what you assumed as a starting point in the first place...

Right. And what I was saying is none of that is relevant in a discussion on Photrio - even the topic of this thread. It's good enough to discuss the topic casually, without some assumed set of first principles. No one will ever agree on them, anyway.

 

[cliveh]

Is photography reality? Surely that is dependent on the eye of the beholder?

 

[Maris]

Maris I have seen you repeatedly critique comments for lacking philosophical rigor. On the one hand, we have all the seen the discussions go in circles with people talking past each other because a lack of precision in language has people talking about different things. If that is a problem, what is the solution? Does everyone need to take a philosophy course? ,,,,

It could be useful if all those intending philosophical debate took at least one formal semester in basic philosophical concepts. Students who do this are immediately shocked to discover things they knew to be certain and universally agreed upon can lead to swampy logical ground.

Here's a paltry photographic example:
What is reality? A popular and seemingly strong proof for reality is the quality of existence. Can something be real and be predicated on non-existence at the same time? You would think that can't be the case.
Suppose you you take your camera and go out on a sunny day. Look down and you will see your shadow upon the ground. Even though you see it does the shadow exist? The appearance of the shadow depends on the non-existence of direct rays of sunlight. One can measure the magnitude of this non-existence with a spot-meter and you can photograph it with a camera.
If the shadow is alternatively declared real it follows that the "existence proof of reality" either falls over or is incomplete and needs fixing up. Swampy ground indeed!

Frankly I'm glad that humourless academic philosophers mostly stay out of threads like this. Better to have a flow of informal palaver that is interesting, entertaining and offers a genuine insight into what contemporary people think in the world at large.

 

[Don_ih]

The appearance of the shadow depends on the non-existence of direct rays of sunlight.

That should be "absence" rather than "non-existence". A shadow is delineated just as much by the presence of light around it as the absence of light within it. That a shadow is impermanent and dependent on something blocking a projection of light doesn't mean it isn't real.

Now, you don't exactly photography "it", though. Let's look at the following example from Lee Friedlander:

This is a photo of Friedlander's shadow and a few other shadows. But what is it actually a photo of? Friedlander's shadow is the area defined by the darker outline of his body (you can recognize that's what it is) but it's actually a photo of the floor and the blinds (that's where the shadow "falls"). Yet, even though you see the floor and the blinds when you see his shadow, it's certainly the shadow you're looking at in this photo.

Keep in mind that, if you and your bicycle are on the sidewalk before a very large building that casts it's shadow over you, your bicycle, the sidewalk, the cars on the street, and the buildings across the road, you are all just as equally in shadow as the area defined by Friedlander's silhouette in the above photo, yet when you look at your bicycle, you don't consider you're looking at the shadow of the building.

What were we talking about again?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I didn't think you were. My question to you was sincere.



Yeah, so my question is how the difference between these two ways of printing meaningful? Sure, there are technical differences, but setting those apart for a bit - is a print made in either of these ways somehow more real, more meaningful, more valuable etc. than the other?

No difference leaving aside things like resolution and other technical variables. They're both depictions of reality.

 

[MattKing]

No difference leaving aside things like resolution and other technical variables. They're both depictions of reality.

As long as you delete the last two words, I agree with you .

 

[Chan Tran]

A photograph (regardless of film or digital or how to display it via a print, an LCD display etc..) doesn't look like reality. Of course it's not reallity but it doesn't look like reality either. I see a scene with my eyes (2 eyes). The angle of view of each of my eyes is limited but my eye balls move so I have a very wide view of the scene. I have a 3D vision instead just 2 D photograph. My eyes don't really have a lot of DOF yet because my eyes keep focusing unconciously near and far I have the impression of very deep DOF. A photograph never look the same.

 

[koraks]

No difference leaving aside things like resolution and other technical variables. They're both depictions of reality.

Right, yeah, I think objectively I'd agree.
And yet, if that were all, I wouldn't find myself mucking around with color enlargements. So apparently, for me personally, there's something else at play as well. I was wondering how you felt about it. Thanks for responding.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As long as you delete the last two words, I agree with you .

Get real!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Right, yeah, I think objectively I'd agree.
And yet, if that were all, I wouldn't find myself mucking around with color enlargements. So apparently, for me personally, there's something else at play as well. I was wondering how you felt about it. Thanks for responding.

No matter how much you muck around in Photoshop or the darkroom, you can't clone the real thing unless you're a magician. It may be a good depiction or a bad depiction. But that's all it will ever be.

 

[koraks]

you can't clone the real thing unless you're a magician.

No, that's true. You can get mighty close though if you compare an enlargement to a digitally printed chromogenic print; it's the same material, which helps. But the reality is that you generally don't get close simply because the digital domain and enlargement offer different opportunities. So you end up with something that looks quite different anyway.

 

[TomR55]

A lot of energy here … (no pun intended). For anyone who is interested in what it means to ask the original question, start by reading:

“On Photography, A Philosophical Inquiry” Diarmuid Costello, published by Routledge Press, First published in 2018.

If you have a degree in Philosophy, you’ll have an easier time with this book, if not, find some good online “philosophy dictionaries,” to find useful definitions of formal terms. Chasing the references found in the end of chapter notes and, of course, the Bibliography will provide you with good starting points to explore contemporary thinking on this topic—and, perhaps find out where you fit in the mix.

I have read this small book several times … because, I’m interested in these particular questions. And in philosophy asking the right questions is often more important than evaluating the answers. That said, these studies are not as valuable as a pound of talent and drive, seasoned with a pinch of good fortune.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

A lot of energy here … (no pun intended). For anyone who is interested in what it means to ask the original question, start by reading:

“On Photography, A Philosophical Inquiry” Diarmuid Costello, published by Routledge Press, First published in 2018.

If you have a degree in Philosophy, you’ll have an easier time with this book, if not, find some good online “philosophy dictionaries,” to find useful definitions of formal terms. Chasing the references found in the end of chapter notes and, of course, the Bibliography will provide you with good starting points to explore contemporary thinking on this topic—and, perhaps find out where you fit in the mix.

I have read this small book several times … because, I’m interested in these particular questions. And in philosophy asking the right questions is often more important than evaluating the answers. That said, these studies are not as valuable as a pound of talent and drive, seasoned with a pinch of good fortune.

The book sounds interesting; I've ordered it from Routledge, along with another book about teaching photography (BTW- if anyone is interested, Routledge is having a 20% off sale for the month of April - jump on it while you can).

 

[TomR55]

The book sounds interesting; I've ordered it from Routledge, along with another book about teaching photography (BTW- if anyone is interested, Routledge is having a 20% off sale for the month of April - jump on it while you can).

I find it interesting, but I read a fair number of academic texts. I’ll say that this particular text is less off-putting. The author summarizes contemporary schools of thought about photography and then proceeds to present ontological and epistemological arguments—again from the “orthodox” to the “postmodern” camps. I don’t know how difficult it would be to follow-up on some of the citations … unless you had a good library or, more likely, access to a university or college library.
I’d be curious to hear others’ reactions to this small, but engaging text.

 

[snusmumriken]

That should be "absence" rather than "non-existence". A shadow is delineated just as much by the presence of light around it as the absence of light within it. That a shadow is impermanent and dependent on something blocking a projection of light doesn't mean it isn't real.

Now, you don't exactly photography "it", though. Let's look at the following example from Lee Friedlander:

View attachment 368204

This is a photo of Friedlander's shadow and a few other shadows. But what is it actually a photo of? Friedlander's shadow is the area defined by the darker outline of his body (you can recognize that's what it is) but it's actually a photo of the floor and the blinds (that's where the shadow "falls"). Yet, even though you see the floor and the blinds when you see his shadow, it's certainly the shadow you're looking at in this photo.

Keep in mind that, if you and your bicycle are on the sidewalk before a very large building that casts it's shadow over you, your bicycle, the sidewalk, the cars on the street, and the buildings across the road, you are all just as equally in shadow as the area defined by Friedlander's silhouette in the above photo, yet when you look at your bicycle, you don't consider you're looking at the shadow of the building.

What were we talking about again?

It's the frame that isolates and emphasises what the photographer wishes you to notice. There are many photos in which the shadow of a building is the thing of interest because it is contrasted with sunlit areas that are also in the frame. This would be true of paintings too, of course.

 

[chuckroast]

Pretty much all the arts have some combination of:

• Principal theme
• Context
• Rhythm
• Harmony
• Space
• Tone

And so forth ...

Photographers talk about light or the absence thereof. Musicians talk about the power of what you do not play in certain phrasings. (Or in the words of one of my teachers, "The funk is in the holes.")

The better these are integrated, the better the work. It's worth noting, that the past 100 years or so has seen a distinct movement toward a reductionism and stripping away of many of these things in the name of claimed art. Some people do it really well: Miles Davis, for example, was a master of not playing things to very powerful effect. Brassai let good parts of his images go jet black to make a visual point. Some people produce irredeemable dreck - most contemporary pop music leaps to mind. So just "playing the spaces" or reducing artistic complexity does not greatness make.

What's interesting to me is that these themes are timeless show up from Gregorian chant to digital image processing, and everything in between. It suggests - to me, anyway - that there is something innately wired into being human that helps us seek and identify not only art, but good art. I think it must be a building block of all humanity.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

...
What's interesting to me is that these themes are timeless show up from Gregorian chant to digital image processing, and everything in between. It suggests - to me, anyway - that there is something innately wired into being human that helps us seek and identify not only art, but good art. I think it must be a building block of all humanity.

You can tell a good photo in two seconds. We know.

It's also why the "rules" of photography result from what's already wired into our heads. They are not the cause of good photography but an explanation of the circuitry in our brains.