Thursday, February 15, 2007

Truth In Advertising

I used to be anti-digital. I think my problem with digital photography was that it seemed to0 easy to manipulate, that it could lie. One of the reasons I like photography is that it shows truth. It shows what was there when you pressed the button. I remember being shocked about an article in one of the photo magazines. A wildlife photographer had added a chimpanzee to one of his photos in another magazine. He thought the original photo needed "something" and so he added the chimp. It didn't seem ethical. I would never do that. But guess what? I did. And I did it with a film camera. How shocking!

This photo I took for a photography class. The assigment was to take a roll of pictures, roll back the film, and then re-shoot the roll for a set of double exposures. We weren't supposed to keep track of what we shot the first time so the photos would be random. I cheated a little in that I shot mostly pattern or landscape shots the first round and then the second round had subjects - a flower, a duck, this peacock, etc. I hated that the professor could so easily dismiss my eye and I refused to give up all of it. It may have been random but it was going to have my stamp on it! By golly. :P Anyway, I was lucky that the peacock "fell" into this landscape and not the others. Wouldn't have worked in the other shots, I think. Still, the peacock wasn't there when I took the original photo. It was added to it. Not digitally either. Oooh, what a scandal.

If you look closely at the peacock, you'll see he's disappearing, fading like a dream as you wake. Or he's appearing, like a dream coming to life. Or maybe he's a ghost of a memory, there on the edges but not clear. Or could be you just see a peacock. It depends on how you look at it. That's really all that matters when it comes right down to it. That the viewer gets something out of your photo. Sometimes with photograhy, like life, you have to decide for yourself what's "truth". And truth isn't always what you see when you look thru the lens. I've slowly come to realize that.

4 comments:

Wrenched Photography said...

*pop*

Double exposuers are a pain. You pulled it off though.

Your old prof dont know squat.

DV said...

ya know, i no nothing about photography really except how to push a button and play with software... but i'm frequently amazed by your posts and what you do with old-school (i.e. non digital) photos...
i had no idea it was possible to use film twice... how do you "roll back" film?

Lisa said...

You know, I don't think I would have minded his assignments if I thought he respected us. Often I got the impression that he would rather be somewhere else. Anywhere else. Which led me to believe that he wasn't passionate about photography. Because how could you not want to share something you're passionate about?

Trijack - I guess film photographers do have quite a bag of tricks up their sleeves. It's really not that different from digital. Just different methods. :)

Laurie said...

Very cool. It almost looks like a painting where the edges of the peacock seems to distort into the background.