Ignacio Palacio - Image Manipulation

[amolitor]

I mean, if the point is something like this: there's no such thing as objective reality, so there's nothing for a photograph to index there are several problems with this kind of thing.

Immediately:
The first clause is open to discussion, but even if we stipulate that there's no such thing as an objective reality, it does not follow that there's nothing to index. Maybe photos index something else, after all.

At more length:
Even if we stipulate that there's no such thing as an objective reality, AND that there is therefore nothing for a photograph to index, NONETHELESS, the photo exists and is different from a painting. At this point we can start going on about levels of subjective reality, and point out that photos index or are otherwise attached to one level, and paintings another.

Because, ultimately, straight photos are not paintings. They are different and whatever the differences are, wherever they spring from, they are the root of what makes a photograph powerful as a photograph. It literally does not matter what model of reality, of thought, of whatever, you use, because photos are manifestly not paintings. Any model you use that mushes them together is therefore wrong.

Beating around the bush with philosophical koans doesn't actually change that, it just muddies up the water to no particular purpose.

ETA: The point I've been making all along is, in these terms, that people believe in an objective reality, and they believe that a photograph indexes a real slice of that objective reality. Even if we're all brains in vats, it is precisely these beliefs which give photography its distinctive power. If you like, you can delete all discussion of actual realities from what I have said, and replace it with equivalent statements about what people believe, and nothing changes.

[Bruce Cox]

I'm more in favor of Objective Reality than I am in what other people believe.  Audiences vary.

Robust though objective reality may be we are unable to perceive it in anything approaching a coherent manner.  We just make do.

Photography is part of making do and I agree that indexing is one of its strengths, though only when used well.  

[Isaac]

The image data file is a report on the number of photons that fell into each of the camera sensor's photosites during the course of the exposure. It's a record of an event in which light bouncing of the subject was mapped onto the sensor. For sure, it is somewhat abstract compared to photons effecting changes to a piece of silver gelatin.

No longer "an imprint of that reality" but measurements and statistical approximations. (However, I'm not going to take this any further.)

[elliot_n]

No longer "an imprint of that reality" but measurements. (However, I'm not going to take this any further.)

That's a relief, as I'm uncertain about my definition of the index as an 'imprint'. It seems to me that the image projected by a camera obscura is an indexical image. Likewise a shadow. The burning of this image into a piece of film, or the analysis of this image by a digital sensor, is not what makes it indexical.

[BradSmith]

I'm interested in the idea that a photograph can have multiple realities, and can extend outside of the frame, both spatially and temporally. However, I think these dynamics are grounded in the photograph's fundamental indexicality.     

And then:    "..............I'm uncertain about my definition of the index as an 'imprint'. ............... the image projected by a camera obscura is an indexical image. Likewise a shadow. The burning of this image into a piece of film, or the analysis of this image by a digital sensor, is not what makes it indexical."


Wow!!!!!!        spatially         temporally             indexicality          imprint

[amolitor]

Regardless of whether it is "indexical" or something else is somewhat beside the point. It is something literal enough that we believe we can "know" something about the scene.

Anything that permits us believe that Phan Thị Kim Phúc was truly that terrified would be equivalent. A painting does not have this property, nor does a verbal description (and, increasingly, a photograph doesn't either, which is my thesis in this thread). What it *is* hardly matters, what it *does* to us, what it allows us to believe, that is the important thing. That is the property that photographs have had, a property that photographs are losing for a variety of reasons -- among them the widespread use of photoshop.

The change is not really in the photograph, it is in us.

[Isaac]

Regardless of whether it is "indexical" or something else is somewhat beside the point.

What other "deep connection with reality" do you have in mind?

Yes, photography has unique characteristics which permit it to render images with exceptional levels of realism, if one so chooses.

With exceptional levels of perceptual realism - "The apparent realism of digitally processed or created images, then, is a function of the way that multiple levels of perceptual correspondence are built into the image. These establish reference points with the viewer's own experientially based understanding of light, space, motion, and the behavior of objects in a three-dimensional world."

"… lighting effects that makes them appear to be actual items photographed in a studio or out in the wild. … Technically, KeyShot works by simulating the scattering of photons as they bounce around in a scene and interact with the different materials."

"But finally I would claim that we still have only the beginnings of an account of the fascination photography exerts and although the use of the term “index” may have helped explain some aspects of this fascination, I am not at all sure it is either an adequate or accurate term. … I think this approach prematurely cuts off the claims … that the photograph exceeds the functions of a sign and that this indeed is part of the fascination it offers."

pdf What’s the Point of an Index? or, Faking Photographs Tom Gunning, 2004

If you're interested in that sort of thing :-)

[Bruce Cox]

That [Andrew's last post] makes sense to me and I agree.

I am in favor of honesty.  Credulity, however, must be tempered.

My father kidded his father for believing something merely because it was in print.

Mechanical reproduction can be very helpful, but who do you trust is frequently a better question than what do you trust.

[Isaac]

That [Andrew's last post] makes sense to me and I agree.

That post includes several different statements. Do they all make sense to you? Do you agree with all of them?

[elliot_n]

Wow!!!!!!        spatially         temporally             indexicality          imprint

http://www.dpreview.com

[Bruce Cox]

That post includes several different statements. Do they all make sense to you? Do you agree with all of them?

Pretty much.

I too regret the encroachment of human duplicity into systems intended [largely] for enlightenment, whether it's the press, the telephone, photography or the internet.

It's not just bad behavior that's the problem though.  The levers of power over the world around us keep getting more effective and widely distributed.  Whether we want to or not we are likely to make a mess.  Messes are hard to believe in.  I think, in the future, people should believe in being part right if they are trying to make it real compared to what. . .

[Isaac]

What it *is* hardly matters, what it *does* to us, what it allows us to believe, that is the important thing. That is the property that photographs have had, a property that photographs are losing for a variety of reasons -- among them the widespread use of photoshop.

Everytime this comes up, Nick Devlin reminds us that photos "… require a witness to testify, on oath, that they accurately depicted (at least some facet) of their subject at the relevant time".

"The truth claim must always be supported by rules of discourse, whether rigorously defined (as in scientific or legal evidence) or inherent in general practice (as in the belief that news reporting generally tells the truth; It seems to me that doubts about journalists’ commitments to the truth more likely undermine belief in the truth claim of a photograph than the simple fact of technical manipulability).
…
We must keep in mind that only a limited practice of photography ever made accuracy or truth claims an essential part of its practice and that many uses of photography intentionally flout such claims."

pp43-44 "What’s the Point of an Index? or, Faking Photographs"

What's at question in discussion of Ignacio Palacios's article is Sharon's understanding that -- "There is an implied shared experience in landscape photography - that the photographer stood at that place and witnessed a scene and that the viewer could have been there also. You invite the viewer to share the experience."


Along with something akin to the old controversy --

… concerning artistic labor centered on the accusation that the painter had "contrived to persuade a number of aesthetic individuals who have more money than brains to pay high prices for a few hours' slapdash work with his brush."
…
For Ruskin, Whistler's aim was detached from any serious mode of naturalistic inquiry, making his way of painting nothing more than a lazy affectation."

p123, Photography and the Art of Chance