Does a photo lie or its caption?

[Rob C]

Not complicated Andrew, just another of those concepts without definition that are, nevertheless, supposed to be self-evident to the extent that you are supposed to be able to state/declare them under oath at the risk of perjuring yourself if your version of truth is trumped by another's. Like porn, then, where one knows it when one sees it... except another probably thinks it high art.

Hope dear Alan's brow is now soothed and gently mopped, his cat allergy allayed.

;-)

[Alan Klein]

Three cats under a hot tin roof, just for an anxious Slobodan:

[/font]
Well that's a picture of a painting.  So is the painting the truth and if so does it make the photo the truth?  Is a photo more true than a painting? Does a photo totally manipulated in PS the truth or digital art?  Why do we call it a photo? 

[amolitor]

Alan, do you intend those question seriously?

[Rob C]

[/font]
Well that's a picture of a painting.  So is the painting the truth and if so does it make the photo the truth?  Is a photo more true than a painting? Does a photo totally manipulated in PS the truth or digital art?  Why do we call it a photo?

Well no, Alan, it's not a painting.

The three cats are cut-outs pasted to the wall in the bar... there are more, and I don't know the reason the guy has them.

However, your questions have been addressed in the other thread about photography being or not still being photography today.

[Telecaster]

I have known a lot of guys, but I wouldn't confuse an acquaintance with a friend, a very much more rare animal.

Yes. Deep and meaningful friendships are rare (or so I've found), and all but one of mine as an adult have been with women. Bruce is my most recent genuine friend, and we've known each other for ~12 years. All the others go back much further. Patty and I have been friends since high school…40+ years.

Still I've always been comfortable being on my own. Give me a guitar, a camera and an engrossing book and I'm good to go. 

-Dave-

[langier]

A (non-manipulated) photo seldom lies, it just doesn't always tell the truth, even if it's straight out of the camera. Point of view, cropping and more can change the message, as does editing a single image from an assignment or shoot. Sometimes, its the photo that wasn't taken that is the real truth. Intent of the photo along with the subject behavior changing when within the proximity of the camera. Don't simply take the word on a single image, be diligent in the information that's presented to you from any source in the media.

Case in point, DAPL a couple of years ago. The "focus" of much of the visual reportage appeared to feature the 1970s-style protest that was little noticed for several weeks until it became fashionable to go to photograph the encampment. Yet, few did the due diligence to discover the other side of the story and it seemed to be ignored, requiring the average person to fend for himself. I think it was that it was just not "sexy" or exciting to photograph that narrative. I guess we sometimes favor David over Goliath even if it is just a myth... A single photo doesn't always tell the entire story much as one can see only one side of a coin at a time.

[Rob C]

Well, I had a good friend who was Lesbian. Very nice girl, really. And to be honest, It could have been working, me and here, I would not object to a second woman in bed. :-)
But then, at a certain evening, we effectively ended up with 3 in bed. And damned, I didn't have a thing to bring in . I was literally a quantité négligeable. :-)

We spent lot's of evenings in a local Lesbian bar, and one evening i took here for a dance. Next thing I remember was I was laying on the floor with a gap in my head. Some jealous woman hit me with a Marlboro ashtray.

Apart from this short story, I can testify the elegant Lesbian's on tv or in films are seldom found on the Lesbian scene. And the last woman I want to be found dead with, is one that pretends to have a dick. :-)

What did you expect? You were only permitted in in order to be the victim, the humiliant, if I may be allowed to create a pleasing neologism - probably the only 'gism going at such times!

Isn't life fascinating when you get up and about? I think I've just convinced myself to go out for lunch again today, despìte thinking I couldn't be bothered. Never know what lunch might bring.

By the way, some of you guys are from the right end of Europe and can help me out: when writing a name that includes van as part of it, as in Vincent van Gogh or J-S van Damme, should the van always use a capital V or does that depend on the circumstance in which the name is used?

Rob

[Ivo_B]

What did you expect? You were only permitted in in order to be the victim, the humiliant, if I may be allowed to create a pleasing neologism - pobably the only 'gism going at such times!

Isn't life fascinating when you get up and about? I think I've just convinced myself to go out for lunch again today, despìte thinking I couldn't be bothered. Never know what lunch might bring.

By the way, some of you guys are from the right end of Europe and can help me out: when writing a name that includes van as part of it, as in Vincent van Gogh or J-S van Damme, should the van always use a capital V or does that depend on the circumstance in which the name is used?

Rob

I did expect to have the night of my life, instead I witnessed the night of two woman's life. :-)

Ha, the V question.

There is a difference between the Netherlands and Belgium.

In Belgium, if the V is not capital, it is said the person have noble ancestors, but this is not a general rule. It is how it is officially recorded and here a lot of typos and writing errors are the cause. So it is according how it is in the register, not following a kind of rule.

Up to 1806 the parish registers where the only real registration of birth and passing away. in 1806 under Napoleon the National register was founded and a surname became obligatory for not noble a few years later. Names as: Rick from the Corner, or Jeff from the water where used if nothing else seemed appropriate or just in case of no fantasy. It is said that in Holland, peoples where so anti Napoleon they fooled a bit and took stupid names. Still today you can find Dutch peoples with, for Belgian ears, incredible idiot surnames.
And then there is the issue of bastard kids from the noble, landlords, even it is a public secret our first king made a platoon of children with same umber of unmarried mistresses. Those kids got a kind of a legacy and received a name. Genealogical investigation of peoples with ancestors in this situation stops abrupt at a certain point in history. :-)

In The Netherlands it is according to a simple rule. If the forename is mentioned, the 'van' is with a small v. => Gerard van Steen.  If the forename is not mentioned, p.e. mister Van Steen, the van is written with a capital V.
at least, that is what I remember from school.
Our Dutch friends on Lula will counter speak if not accurate.

:-)

[Rob C]

Thank you for the advice on the use of "van" which I thought I had seen written both ways, but had no idea why.

Paperwork confounds everybody; that's why we moved to computers: you can blame them and so nobody gets hurt or fired, unless you run a bank like the TSB whose head honcho just resigned for a minor inconvenience caused by a new computer system introduced when the TSB gained independence from Lloyds Bank. It's not like anybody lost money - in fact they saved some, because their online banking was halted for some time. Best reason yet to keep local banks open. I never use online for that stuff. You can talk to a person, but if you do that to a computer you have a problem. A big one. A bigger one than you think.

:-)

[Ivophoto]

You are right. However, getting back to your topic would mean a political discussion. You'd be better off just locking the thread yourself. Otherwise, we might even get some pictures of cats. Or lesbians.

Slobodan, man, I have to stop reading your comments while drinking my coffee. I sprayed my screen again with coffee out of my nostrils. Your humor is priceless.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan, man, I have to stop reading your comments while drinking my coffee. I sprayed my screen again with coffee out of my nostrils. Your humor is priceless.

Thank you, party of one

[LesPalenik]

By the way, some of you guys are from the right end of Europe and can help me out: when writing a name that includes van as part of it, as in Vincent van Gogh or J-S van Damme, should the van always use a capital V or does that depend on the circumstance in which the name is used?

Rob

Or if you were an American, called Van Trump, they might create a park in your name (Van Trump Park in the Washington state).
No political motifs in this post, Philemon Beecher Van Trump (1839–1916), also known as P. B. Van Trump, was an American pioneering mountaineer who is best known for the first ascent of Mount Rainier in 1870.

[Ray]

In a sense, everything we perceive is a lie because everything has to be interpreted and every interpretation will be different, to some degree, depending on a person's biases, prejudices, background experiences, education, and so on. However, this is in relation to the concept of an 'absolute' truth.

A lie is a willful attempt to distort what one believes to be true, whether or not what one believes to be true actually is true.
For example, if a person with a mental disorder were to state that he had just witnessed his great grandfather, who died many years ago, sitting at the table opposite him, during the evening meal, would that be a lie? Not necessarily. However, if the same person were asked by a psychiatrist if he'd ever experienced visual impressions of dead people as though they had come back to life, and the person replied 'No', then that would be a lie.

The concept that the camera doesn't lie is true because only animate creatures can lie. If the photographer genuinely believes that his photo is an accurate representation of what he saw at the time of the shot, then he is not lying.

In the case of the Angela Merkel shot, it's common practice for journalists to choose the photo which best matches their 'biased' story. If the person writing the story genuinely believes that what he has written is true, then he is not lying.

Oops! Have I strayed into philosophy? 

[Ivophoto]

In a sense, everything we perceive is a lie because everything has to be interpreted and every interpretation will be different, to some degree, depending on a person's biases, prejudices, background experiences, education, and so on. However, this is in relation to the concept of an 'absolute' truth.

A lie is a willful attempt to distort what one believes to be true, whether or not what one believes to be true actually is true.
For example, if a person with a mental disorder were to state that he had just witnessed his great grandfather, who died many years ago, sitting at the table opposite him, during the evening meal, would that be a lie? Not necessarily. However, if the same person were asked by a psychiatrist if he'd ever experienced visual impressions of dead people as though they had come back to life, and the person replied 'No', then that would be a lie.

The concept that the camera doesn't lie is true because only animate creatures can lie. If the photographer genuinely believes that his photo is an accurate representation of what he saw at the time of the shot, then he is not lying.

In the case of the Angela Merkel shot, it's common practice for journalists to choose the photo which best matches their 'biased' story. If the person writing the story genuinely believes that what he has written is true, then he is not lying.

Oops! Have I strayed into philosophy? 

You have given a very clear and interesting perspective. Thanks.
Ivo

[Rob C]

The flaw in your argument, from my "lying" perspective comes late in your post where you state that the concept of the camera not lying is true because it's an inanimate object. Does that imply that you believe it to tell truth, whist still inanimate? I don't imagine that you do, but the thought, nonetheless, arose...

This relates to the thing discussed here once in a while about photographs having messages. I don't believe they do: I believe they can be constructed so as to suggest thoughts in some directions, but prodding thought isn't the same as providing a message.

The example of the flower pot is one such: it doesn't really suggest anything - it just is what it looks like; there is no emotional force intrinsic to it that I can sense. My suggestion in the earlier post was tongue-in-cheek and I suppose it's what happens across multilingual zones, that finer details of communication are lost - as per the movie title. However, the doll is dynamite in several languages and probably across cultures, too. A flower pot in a corridor?

This isn't meant as a grading comment regarding quality of photos - just that some seem to fit a category where others can't fit the same one.

Agreed or otherwise, I find these conversations more interesting that gear-talk.

Rob

[Ivophoto]

The flaw in your argument, from my "lying" perspective comes late in your post where you state that the concept of the camera not lying is true because it's an inanimate object. Does that imply that you believe it to tell truth, whist still inanimate? I don't imagine that you do, but the thought, nonetheless, arose...

This relates to the thing discussed here once in a while about photographs having messages. I don't believe they do: I believe they can be constructed so as to suggest thoughts in some directions, but prodding thought isn't the same as providing a message.

The example of the flower pot is one such: it doesn't really suggest anything - it just is what it looks like; there is no emotional force intrinsic to it that I can sense. My suggestion in the earlier post was tongue-in-cheek and I suppose it's what happens across multilingual zones, that finer details of communication are lost - as per the movie title. However, the doll is dynamite in several languages and probably across cultures, too. A flower pot in a corridor?

This isn't meant as a grading comment regarding quality of photos - just that some seem to fit a category where others can't fit the same one.

Agreed or otherwise, I find these conversations more interesting that gear-talk.

Rob

The flower pot is just what it looks like. Correct.  And different viewer have different reactions on it. So how does that match?
It’s the viewers projection.
This is an important mechanism and used in conceptual and cerebral art. Why could photography not be of that kind?

[Rob C]

The flower pot is just what it looks like. Correct.  And different viewer have different reactions on it. So how does that match?
It’s the viewers projection.
This is an important mechanism and used in conceptual and cerebral art. Why could photography not be of that kind?

That's my point: I don't honestly believe a viewer can feel anything in that pot beyond the obvious. Of course, we are just as likely, by this view, to encourage a million posts to the opposite, but that's Internet psychology at work.

Talking about conceptual and cerebral art is one of my red flags: it usually means that if I dip a toe therein, I find many naked swimmers, royal or otherwise.

;-)

Rob

[Ivo_B]

That's my point: I don't honestly believe a viewer can feel anything in that pot beyond the obvious. Of course, we are just as likely, by this view, to encourage a million posts to the opposite, but that's Internet psychology at work.

Talking about conceptual and cerebral art is one of my red flags: it usually means that if I dip a toe therein, I find many naked swimmers, royal or otherwise.

;-)

Rob

In the Doll vs Pot topic, I could have used this one (see below) completely on the opposite side of the scale. What would be the reaction here? That this setting blows away the subtile dynamite of the doll?

Nearly every photographer of graveyards or abandoned places carry a kind of doll with him, it is so cheap, dynamite or not. The pot picture abstract from the obvious, and that makes the image interesting for me.

[Ray]

The flaw in your argument, from my "lying" perspective comes late in your post where you state that the concept of the camera not lying is true because it's an inanimate object. Does that imply that you believe it to tell truth, whist still inanimate? I don't imagine that you do, but the thought, nonetheless, arose...

Rob,
A camera is designed to produce 2-dimensional representations of the 3-dimensional objects that surround us. The representations are not even close to reality, although we usually don't have trouble in identifying the objects or subjects that are represented, but sometimes we do if they are abstract.

I'm reminded here of Picasso's response when someone criticized his paintings for not representing reality as a photo does. Picasso asked the person if he had a photo of his wife. The guy pulled from his wallet a small photo of his wife, maybe 2"x3", to show Picasso. Picasso commented, 'surely your wife is not that small'. 

In other words, the camera (with lens) is designed to produce a specific quality of image in specific circumstances with specific settings. It will always produce the same 'quality of representation' in the same circumstances with the same settings, because it has no choice. Therefore, it cannot lie. But it can malfunction of course.

[32BT]

I would like to suggest the following:

There is a very distinct difference imo between ambiguity in a picture vs ambiguity in the viewer. Obviously there is no issue with an artist searching the limits of the latter. But there is an issue with the former since ambiguity itself can not be ambiguous, therefore an image contains it or it doesn't.

Similarly images can most definitely contain messages in the same sense as common sayings and colloquialism contains figurative language. How much of it one manages to capture and project on the viewer is obviously an intricate process involving too many variables concerning background and culture to such an extent that it seems a small wonder that it's even possible. But it happens especially with universal commonalities like certain emotions, family bonds etc...

However when an image merely triggers projection of the viewer on the image, i personally consider it shoddy art, because while it may be psychologically revealling, it also means your art expression was no better than a Rorschach test.