5 Arguments Against “Is That REALLY How You Saw It?” – #5: Are you Superman?Posted by drfl on June 7th, 2010

When exhibiting their work, photographers always go through the “Is that REALLY how you saw it?” question and subsequent discussion. Of course, this phrasing isn’t always exact, sometimes it appears in the form of “What did you photoshop?”, “Is that real?”, and my favorite, “It certainly did not look like that!” (Notice the lack of actual question). Photographers handle this question through a wide-range of explanations and emotions including, but not limited to:

• Reasoning with the individual (who needs to justify their art?)
• Providing a one-word answer (usually, “yes”, which alienates the viewer/potential buyer)
• Giving an overly technical discussion of the image (confusing and then alienating the viewer/potential buyer)
• Unbridled anger (never good, in any situation)

This week I plan on exploring this question through 5 technical discussions. At the beginning of each discussion I will provide an image that I captured. At the end I will provide a scale that designates what I believe most of the non-photographer public would peg the amount of photoshopping or “Mass Believability”. The scale will range from to 1-Nothing “real” here, baby! to 10-Au Naturel. To obtain a ultimately fruitful result from this series, on the last day these analyses will culminate in a discussion of effective ways to tackle this from a business perspective.

Today’s argument – Are you Superman?

I’ll start the week-long discussion with the obvious: Cameras are not made with human brains and eyes. I’m not sure I’d even want to touch a camera made with those items anyway. By the very nature that the tool is not human, well, that makes it not “how you saw it”. If it was, we would have a usb port to our brains and that is so Star Trek – as in, not today.

So, let’s focus on the camera as a tool. It’s common knowledge that one can buy lenses for cameras in different focal lengths. Even point an shoots have little zoom lenses that change when pushed. The last time I checked, I did not have the ability to zoom my eyes. Sure, I can focus my brain on an object and so some visualization, but in the strictest sense the camera is capturing my subject in a way in which I did not technically “see” it.

It is purported that the focal length of “normal vision” is 50mm. Sorry, wildlife photographers, if you use a telephoto lens, then you did not “see” the critter like that. By the very selection of your lens, you cannot in good conscious answer the ultimate question with a “Yes!”. Landscape photographers, did you use a wide-angle? You too, not how you saw it! Sports photogs? Nope, not even close! Unless you’re superman, then you do not have the ability to change the focal length of your eyes. Is the image of the egret above how I “saw” it? Nope, I was on a road, across the pond from this guy. In my field of vision, I had a couple of trees, a hill, a run-down building, oh and an egret. With this particular photograph, in most photographic exhibitions I would not be asked if that is how I saw it, because it isn’t a completely uncommon sight, and yet it is definitely not what I saw! Most viewers have probably witnessed something similar – i.e. cardinal on a birdbath, heron in a marsh, rubber ducky in a bathtub. Because of prior history and based upon experiences, viewers are more likely to dismiss the image as the real-deal.  It’s got great “Mass Believability”.

Mass Believability? - 10 So Real I Can Touch It!

Technical Details:
Canon 50D, 300 f/4l + 1.4tc, f/5.6, 1/400 sec.
Egret, Northern Arkansas