5 Arguments Against “Is That REALLY How You Saw It?” – #3: Can You Stop Time?Posted by drfl on June 9th, 2010

A hundredth of a second here, a hundredth of a second there — even if you put them end to end, they still only add up to one, two, perhaps three seconds, snatched from eternity.”
- Robert Doisneau

Let’s face it, our eyes are more geared towards movies than photography. When we look at something, it is rarely static. Still photography captures only a slice of moments, fractions of experiences. Our lives are interactive films. Even on a still day, when we point our lenses at an outdoor scene, the sun’s deliberate transit causes shadows to move, light to scatter, and depths to change. A photograph is a wholly singular point in time. We never truly see anything as unchanging. Waterfalls, for example, are usually caught over a long exposure, transforming the motion into silky-smoothness. Is that how we saw it? No. Sometimes, water is captured in a quick stop, drops hanging in mid-air. Is that how we saw it? No. So how did we see it? Simply, motion. A photograph by its very still nature makes it only a frame from the movie of our lives. Unless one is using mind-altering drugs or have achieved higher levels of consciousness can one maybe stop time, and I don’t recommend the former and I have no answers for the latter. Only through a camera can you freeze time easily and effectively.

Mass Believability? – 7 That water looks so surreal!

Technical Details:
Canon 5D Mark II, 17-40 f/4l @ 17mm, f/16, 1.3 sec., Singh-Ray 3-Stop ND Filter
Six Finger Falls, Ozark National Forest, Arkansas