a question of reality
While listening to a podcast that explores unconscious behavior, I was reminded of the disparity between what we witness with our eyes and how that same scene presented by the camera may fall short.
In this episode the host recounts being thrilled at the sight of a Cherry tree that had exploded into bloom in his garden, only to face disappointment as his camera failed to interpret what his eyes had seen. In addition, the image failed to convey the way he felt - that being a message that “winter was nearly over, that spring was around the corner”.
Confused by the outcome the host questioned which version of the cherry tree represents reality better? The one in the photo or the one inside his head?
The truth is, a camera is but a simple device that records light focused onto a sensor. It is purely objective, providing limited control via internal camera settings.
The scenes we witness with our eyes far exceed the capabilities of any camera. The brain is very subjective, tuned to overlook meaningless distractions it constructs a picture in our mind that is heavily influenced by our senses and emotions.
So which is the true reality? I would suggest that the true reality for the photographer is the one built in memory, the one that includes the full package of story and emotions attached to the scene.
In stating that, the onus now lies with the photographer to process camera output to best match their memory of the event. Done correctly the result will trigger a similar emotional response to that at the time of taking.
But, I hear you ask, what does this mean to someone that is viewing for the first time and thus has neither context nor emotional connection?
In this case it is the responsibility of the photographer to build a story to help the viewer better engage with the image. This may require simple edits like darkening a sky to add atmosphere to a gloomy image taken on a rainy day, panning the camera when capturing a speeding car to provide a sense of motion, or removing blemishes to help promote a tale of pristine beauty.
The key takeaway is that the photographer needs to understand and address the inability of the camera to reproduce what we see and feel. It is the responsibility of the photographer to paint a picture that engages the viewer and makes them feel present in the story.
As an example, the picture on the right is the result of an image taken in the midst of a prolonged and heavy snowstorm. I vividly remember a strong sense of isolation and an absolute silence, the scene interrupted only by a graceful sense of falling snow.
Considering the subject, it was tempting to convert the image to black and white, but that would fail to convey a sense of the cold I felt at that time.
A slight blue cast helps bridge the connection between camera output and memory, transporting me back to that moment in time.
This hopefully conveys that same feeling of winter chill in other viewers and helps draw them into the scene.
What are your thoughts on which represents the true reality (mind or camera), and do you process accordingly? Or perhaps you are one that shoots JPEG and allow the camera to make editing choices on your behalf. Whatever your beliefs, I think it important to understand why some images may fall short of expectations.