I deleted my original comments and just left yours to give a context to the reply.
>The key thing about photography that differentiates it from other >media is that the image is formed mechanically from the direct action >of light on a surface - it's not mediated by anyone's brain, so you >can, in principle, show a causal link between the subject matter and >the image. This is why photographs are so inherently believable, and >is why people feel a sense of betrayal when they learn that a> >photograph has been manipulated (ie elements added or removed - >certain activities in post-processing, such as contrast adjustment, >dodging and burning are just working with what's already there to >improve the presentation). >Adding or removing elements breaks the causal relation between the >picture and the subject and adds an entirely different dimension to >the truth-value of the picture, taking into the realm of painting and >writing. These activities may be based in the real world, but they are >mitigated by the writer's or painter's brain. Typical expectations are changing and will continue to change. Photography can produce more "realistic" images than painting, but as manipulation methods become better and more commonly used, reality will have to reside with documentation of the process rather then the final product. >I think that's a category error - it's not the medium that determines >whether something is fiction or not. Our expectations of photography >and painting are different. We know that a painting is the product of >someone's brain. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily fiction, any >more than a piece of journalism is fiction. There are plenty of >historical paintings based on the artist's sketches made from the >scene which are as accurate and reliable as a reporter's article based >on his eye-witness notes. These are not fiction, they're reporting. I agree with your first point but I do think my analogy has some use. Writing can be either fiction or nonfiction and sensible people look for documentation to tell the difference. Most people considered photography to be closer to the visual image generated by the eye than painting. Their were always manipulated photos and very realistic paintings, but most of the time people expected photos to be the more realistic of the two media. Digital photography has made photography more like writing, and people's expectations will change. It's not a right or wrong issue; sensible people will become more suspicious. > Reader of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Tolkien. > P.S. I went to the Jethro Tull 40th anniversary tour last week at > Wolftrap National Park near DC. Ian can still caper with he best of > them ;-) >There's no hope for you. You're not the first to suggest that ;-) Steve (Hopefully this makes sense. It's the end of a long day at the chemistry meeting in Philadelphia. 13,000 type A nerds and one really busy Dunkin' Donuts) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
