Either the debate that a digital photo isn't real because it is made up of 0's and 1's. And the editing that takes place between taking the photo and then printing. I wanted to test that those 0's and 1's are just as real as silver gelatin. I was thinking of having a live webcam streaming to a computer screen so that the viewer can see that they are really looking at themselves. Although it will not be a perfect representation of the viewer, it will be them. I think the reason that 0's and 1's are not considered real is because they aren't a physical thing. And I also think that it is just a bit old fashioned, I don't really know which side I am on.
My other theory to test/ prove is that I was going to take a self portrait of myself in large format to get the most detail possible. The lighting isn't necessarily important because no matter what it is, that's how I looked and that moment in time. But then me being me, I then picked this to the bone. I realised that I'd have to contact print the negative to get a true representation of the photo of myself. But then I could do that contact print too dark or light, too contrasty, not contrasty enough. Then I thought I could shoot it on transparency film and then just hand the piece of film. That way I haven't edited it. But then I realised that when taking the photo I could have taken it not perfectly exposed. And I could have used a lens that distorts my face. I know that they say a 50mm lens is the same proportion as human perception when using 35mm etc. but surely it's not perfect and I thought about depth of field. How will I get that exactly how the human eye sees it?
I think now after typing my thoughts up I have realised that maybe I have drifted away from realism to perfectionism. But maybe there isn't a 'real' photograph. There's always someones opinion subjectifying it to an extent, surely this distorts it from being 'real'.
help me
No comments:
Post a Comment