The image may not tell the real story

[klew]

As we surely know, photography typically captures a single moment, with minimal context before and after. And if the image creates speculation of its subject matter, the meaning can change, for better or worse. Here is a link to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about how people can "misinterpret" an image.

[jiminyClickit]

klew,

Maybe why "moving pictures" were invented, and then they in turn tell only the story at which the camera is pointed, and only as long as it's pointed there. "Reality . . . what a concept" is more truth than bumber sticker.

[Nicole]

Interesting story, thanks for pointing that out klew.

For me though, I don't know, I'm not sure that photography is a medium that does tell the whole story (or real story as they put it). Isn't the point to tell the story you want to tell with the image you're taking? And this is open to interpretation regardless of the medium. Especially true with photography though because it's hard to show more than a single point, a single moment, in just one single frame.

[Morca007]

The axim that the camera never lies is only partially true. Sure, the camera only does what it is told, but it can only capture an infinitesimal amount of time, a small frame of view (no matter how wide your lens), and only where it is pointed.

I never regard photos as anything more than an artistic interpretation of events.

[Christa]

At least in those photos the story is true. I hate it when the pictures are manipulated to tell a tale that wasn't there in the frist place. I think we have all seen these reports of how photographers used fraud to get a message across.

http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

On a side note, I am not saying I don't think pictures shouldn't be edited to enhance or clarify.

[jiminyClickit]

Anyone,

As participants here, neither generating news nor claiming to be anything more than people learning to take better photographs, what line crossed would be "too much?" Staging a still life? Taking a dark, badly-composed photo through editting to get better-cropped, brightened one?

[Nicole]

I'll throw in another link to an article that I think goes to Jim's point.

How much to get the picture?

Jeff Wall takes massively staged photographs. Are the images any less real because he staged them? Are they of less value? The National Gallery of Victoria (Aus) sure doesn't think so (they recently paid $1 million for the artists proof of one of his prints). I'll put forward the idea that as long as it's not trying to pass for actual news (which I realize seemed to be the point of the first post), then it's no less real than a painting is. Perhaps off the topic, but it fits in nicely somehow with Jim's comment above

[mikem12188]

Nicole,

I agree with you up to a point. Because of our life experiences we all look at things differently. So even trying to take a picture of the "news", your reality may be quite different than mine, which in turn will allow you to "see" a different picture than I do. That doesn't mean one view is better than the other, it's just what is.

It seems the only "reality" is $1,000,000 for a picture.

[Nicole]

Yeah, I'll agree with that whole heartedly... but damn, I'd love to get $1,000,000 for a picture

[mikem12188]

When you do, remember us poor slobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!