Photographs don’t lie. But they could be the photographers lie. That is to say the photograph is a truth in and of its self, it does exist, but as an inanimate object, and so can not lie per se. While that seems like nit-picking to make that distinction, it is important to the discussion of the relationship between photography and truth. A photograph can only be what it is and show what it shows, and what it shows is the result of the human choices made by the photographer. The choice to frame and compose as they did, the choice of what lens, camera and film, and the choice of weather to further process or edit the photograph once taken, the choice of witch photographs to show, and witch to hide. The photograph is the result of these choices and exists only as proof that a photographer created a picture, nothing more and nothing less. The decision to ‘Lie’ can only be taken those creating the image.
So who are the creators of an image? The first and most obvious answer is the photographer, the person who arrives to a given location and event with a camera in hand, and intentionally creates an image. The photographer can then make a variety of different choices about how to interpret the scene, and will do so based on how they see it unfold before them and they’re own prejudices around the events that unfold before them.
For example, in my wedding photography, I approach the events of the day from a variety of angles. I want to document the day, while also shooting sympathetically to the romantic nature. As such I shoot in a way that is easily accessible, clean and clear, using techniques such as shooting with wide apertures to isolate my subjects, but to also create the romantic aesthetic. I am also aware all day of what my client wants to see in the photographs, their friends and family having a good time, the connection between the newlyweds, all the important moments, and they of course want to look their best. So while I try to steer away from any severe changes such as image manipulation in Photoshop, I do use lighting and camera angles to flatter the couple and their guests, and emphasize the mood and atmosphere of their day.
Take for example the image below of the couple embracing while they cut their cake, I would consider this a documentary style image however there is a level of construction to it starting with the lighting. In the room I have two flashes set up on stands, one by the DJ booth behind the couple (you can actually see it in the picture) that acts as a "kicker" light to help them stand out in the image, and one on the other side of the room to add overall fill, not to mention the flash on top of the camera. These are lights I place in the room at the beginning of the evening, and they allow us to capture sharper and clearer images for the couple, but they also create an image in witch the lighting is different to what it really was. Most of our couples do not notice any change in lighting when they come to viewing their photographs, they do notice the sharpness, the clarity and the colors however. In one sense I can see how this might be dishonest, but in reality is it the ambient lighting the bride and groom will look fondly on when they come to view this photo again, or is it simply the moment between them that they will remember?
There is of course another aspect in the construction of this photograph. The action of the subjects. As I said before I consider this image documentary style, I did not ask the couple to embrace and laugh, that happened on its own while they were trying to hold the knife together. However this is an interesting moment to discuss in terms of authenticity and construction as the whole point of this event, the cutting of the cake, is so that everyone can get pictures of the couple cutting the cake together. In a sense, this moment only happened because the couple knew I would be there to take the photo. They have constructed this moment themselves, and while the laughter may be natural, it is born of a constructed scene. In a 2017 Ted Talk Ruben Salvadori (Tedx Talks, 2017) confronts documentary photography, showing his time photographing riots and the striking images he took. During the talk, Salvadori tells us of how he began to turn the camera on the photographers as he realized that something "Did not feel right" . He shows a video (00:06:55) to the audience of what appears to be a part of the riot, if a very calm part of a riot, with a man throwing rocks, however when the camera turns it shows a mass of press photographers all gathered running of photo after photo, and it becomes quite clear that the man throwing rocks is only doing so for the sake of the photographers. Examine the photos below to see the photograph Salvadori took of the young man, and the "Behind the scenes" photo (Also by Salvadori).
The visual discord between the two images is striking, and yet they were taken virtualy within minutes of each other. It is fair to say that they show the same scene, but they do not tell the same story. While it is not clear if the photographers actually asked the man to do throw rocks, or take the confrontational stance as in the second photo here, or if he took it upon himself, the video and these images remain quite arresting. Even as someone who considers himself to be quite wise to the ways of modern media and photographers, I did not expect to see such a crowd of photographers so calmly gathered. We are so often used to seeing the videos and images more akin to the video Salvodori shows earlier in the talk (00:05:38), where in Salvadori finds himself running and hiding from imminent danger, of photographers, reporters and camera men hiding behind cars accompanied by the sounds of gun fire and explosions, that to see a scene so calm, almost serene, becomes totally surreal.
Regardless of his views on the situation, Salvadori still captured the above photo of the young man alongside the other photographers, a photo that on its own conveys the young man as an icon of confrontation, destruction and chaos. This is the story he chose to tell. It could be misconstrued as an attempt to misrepresent the truth of the situation, except that riots, destruction and confrontation were the truth (or, at least, Salvadoris truth), and this photo was simply a representation of that truth.
Salvadori muses on wether simply the presence of the photographers was enough to construct this scene, regardless of their proposed inaction, he asks "Would the violence have happened if the photographers were not there". In the same way, coming back to my previous photograph of the couple at their wedding, would the couple have have laughed and embraced while cutting the cake if I had not been their taking their picture, would they simply have cut the cake and carried on with the evening? Its rather like the old question "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" both questins of witch we will never know the answer too. But perhaps our need to make our audience feel as if they are in the action by getting physical close with our wide angle lenses is causing us to inadvertantly effect the events we aim to objectively capture, less a fly on the wall and more a drop in the pond causing ripples all the same, however small and however much we try not to.
Tedx Talks, 2017. Photos don't lie. Or do they? | Ruben Salvadori | TEDxDornbirn. [Online video] Available at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYJA4Ae3bDc [Accessed Feb 2019)
Comments