Nice comment on an interesting post!
BTW, this reminds me of a "lesson" I used to use when
teaching photography....
I would show a B&W photograph of a lemon (with lemon
centered in a black field, with a wide white border)
and ask what it was. The invariable answer: "a lemon".
Next I would ask for as complete a description of
the characteristics of the "lemon" I was holding as
possible, and would make a list of these (Does it
burn? About how thick is it? What shape is it?
Etc. - about 30 characteristics would be described...).
Next, I would take a lemon out of my pocket, and ask
what it was. The invariable answer: "a lemon". I would
then ask people to place next to the descriptions for
the first lemon the corresponding descriptions for
the second lemon. If the descriptions were accurately
made, there would be NO exact correspondence in any
characteristic at all between the two lemons. Next, I
would go back to the first lemon, and ask again what
it was. The answers might be: "a photograph of a lemon",
"an image of a lemon", etc. The point of the exercise
was to show that by placing something in front of a
camera, the result was not only not a duplicate, but
the result shared NO exact characteristics at all
with it! What was created in the image was a new
object, a photograph, with its own set of descriptive
characteristics, and nothing more, or less... The
students were then (I trust...) free to create images
that stood by their own merits and standards, and not
by how well they "portrayed" or appeared to duplicate
what happened to be in front of the camera - though
the images could, of course, show aspects of, or
"comment on", what was in front of the camera...
I might add to this that, except under VERY rare
and unusual conditions, it is impossible to exactly
duplicate anything at all photographically - and the
generally held opinion that photography is an accurate
recording medium is demonstrably false, and most
photographs lie to those who believe that they record
anything accurately. And, one is free to make
photographs, and to explore the possibilities of
the medium without judging the results on how
"accurate" the portrayal of what was in front of
the camera appears to be...

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:01:24 -0700, Gordon Moat wrote:

>Reminds me of the phrase from Cindy Sherman: "one thing I have learned is
>that photographs lie", or something similar to that. I recently read an
>article in Zone Zero about manipulation in documentary and news
>photography. There have been many instances throughout history of
>changing a scene, creating a scene, or limiting content within a scene.
>These are all choices, yet they are reflections of the individuals who
>captured those images.
>
>With your images, and the choices you have made in your photography, in a
>similar way, this is more than just documenting what you see. The
>question you were asked reminds me more of how some people look at
>paintings, and try to judge them by how realistic they appear, while
>ignoring other aspects. Your choices that enabled the results of your
>images are a reflection of your style.
>
>It is nice to see you developing a style of photography. Thanks for
>sharing your images, and your vision. I hope you continue to develop as a
>photographer. You don't need eyes to see, you need vision.
>
>Ciao!
>
>Gordon Moat
>Alliance Graphique Studio
>

>Lisa Horton wrote:
>
>> A question I get asked regularly is some variant of "Did it really
>> look like that?", meaning did the actual scene or object that I
>> photographed look similar to what is shown in the photo. I'm not sure
>> how to most accurately answer.
>>
>> On the one hand, yes, that car or building or machine really did look,
>> more or less, like what you see. The complexity comes in the "more or
>> less" part:) On the other hand, if they were to go to approximately
>> the same spot that the photo was taken from, what they perceive might
>> not look exactly like the photo.
>>
>> I've chosen what I felt was the precisely best position, height,
>> distance and time of day for viewing that thing in a certain way. I
>> use lenses to control the spatial relationships of parts of the scene,
>> I use selective focus to guide the eye, and I choose film and
>> subjective exposure settings to achieve a certain look that I want.
>> And that's not even looking at the considerable influence our mental
>> filters have on how we perceive things. I should mention that the
>> only filters I use for these photos are a polarizer, and rarely ND
>> grads. I don't cross process or use weird printing techniques. In
>> the digital realm, my adjustments are almost always limited to levels,
>> curves, and sharpening for final output.
>>
>> As Henry Thoreau said, "Many an object is not seen, though it fall
>> within our range of visual ray, because it does not come within the
>> range of our intellectual ray, i.e., we are not looking for it. So,
>> in the largest sense, we find only the world we look for."
>>
>> In the end, I usually answer something like "well, more or less...."
>>
>> How would/do you answer?
>>
>> I think this is at the heart of what we, as photographers, do. Our
>> art is subtractive, we don't start with a blank canvas. The tools
>> that cause the question to be asked are the very tools we use to tell
>> a story or make a statement. Comments?
>>
>> Lisa